THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.421/2010
Dated this the 20th day of March 2013.
( Present: Sri. G. Yadunadhan, B.A., LLB. : President)
Sri. L. Jyothikumar, B.A., LLB. : Member
ORDER
By G. Yadunadhan, President:
The petition was filed on 20-11-2010. The case of the complainant is that the complainant is the R.C. owner of Mahindra Scorpio KL-07-AQ 9061 The above vehicle was stolen from the complainant’s house on 6-12-2008midnight, the complainant had come to know about the theft on 7-12-08 morning and immediately the complainant filed a petition before the Feroke Police and a FIR was registered as per No. 614/08. The Feroke Police after investigating the matter on 11-11-2009 filed a final report before the Hon’ble Judicial First Class Magistrate-V court referring the matter as undetected. After receiving the final report the complainant approached the opposite party for getting the theft claim for Rs.3,65,000/-. The complainant fulfilled all the legal formalities by handing over original R.C. , F.I.R. and final report to the opposite party on 10-12-2009. Since the complainant is a Marine Engineer working in United States the complainant entrusted the complainant’s father Mr. K. Janardhanan to act on complainant behalf. On 10-08-2010 the opposite party sent a letter to the complainant asking the complainant to produce confirmation that the duplicate key has already been handed over to the police and to collect N.C.R.B. report. The opposite party has not till today satisfied the right full and lawful claim of the complainant. The act of the opposite party has caused great mental pain and hardship to the complainant. Therefore complainant seeking relief against opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.3,65,000/- with interest and pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation.
Opposite party after serving notice entered in appearance and filed their version. It is admitted that the complainant is the R.C. owner of the said Mahindra Scorpio bearing Registration No. KL-7-AQ-9061 and the said vehicle was insured with this opposite party. But
opposite party denies the incident occurred on 6-12-2008 at mid-night. It is true that the complainant had handed over original registration certificate, letter of undertaking, F.I.R. to the opposite party on 10-12-2009. This opposite party requested the complainant to produce the R.C. extract from the Regional Transport Authorities at the earliest. Hence the opposite party could not settle the claim, without complying the formalities. Complainant is not entitled to get any claim. Therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Points for consideration (1) Whether any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. (2) Whether complainant is entitled to get any compensation from opposite party, if so what is the relief and costs?
Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A10 were marked. OP examined as RW1 and Ext.B1 was marked.
On perusal of Ext.B1, there is a valid policy at the time of incident. Ext.A1 is the Extract of original RC. Original RC submitted before the OP. No dispute. Ext.A2 is the FIR of Crime No.614/08 of Feroke Police station. Ext.A4 is the final report produced before JMFC –V. Ext A5 is the undertaking letter produced before OP. Ext.A7 &A8 are the letter submitted before OP regarding the non settling of the claim. Ext.A9 is the letter issued by OP asking about non production of certain documents. Ext.A10 is the RC particulars of the vehicle involved in a theft on 06.12.2008 issued by RTO, Ernakulam. Since all the relevant document produced pertaining to the vehicle bearing No.KL-7.AQ.9061. OP has to settle the claim immediately, OP failed to honour the claim of the complainant. While examining the PW1 the only question raised that whether RC particulars produced or not, that was clearly answered by showing Ext.A10 document. Ext.A9 issued by OP stating that NCRB report is highly necessary , it is not the public document and is highly necessary . OP has to take necessary action for getting it. It is the duty of the OP not for the complainant. The act of the OP is deficiency of service. Therefore complainant is entitled to get the IDV value of the vehicle of Rs.342857/- along with compensation of Rs.10000/-.
Therefore OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,42,857/- to the complainant. . along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.5000/-. Comply the order within one month , failing which complainant is entitled to get 9% interest from the date of order.
Pronounced in the open court this the 20th day of March 2013.
Date of filing:20.11.2010
SD/- PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1.Registration certificate dtyd.20.02.2004.
A2. FIR crime No.614/08.
A3.List of property sent to Magistrate dtd.15.12.08
A4.Final report produced Judicial First class Magistrate court-V
A5. Undertaking letter produced before OP.
A6. Letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party.
A7.Letter submitted by opposite party regarding the non settling of the claim dtd.10.8.10.
A8. Lawyer notice issued to the opposite party dtd.08.09.2010
A9. Letter issued by opposite party to the complainant dtd.06.12.2010.
A10. RC Particulars of the vehicle involved in a theft on 06.12.08 issued by RTO, EKM.
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
B1. Valid policy at the time of incident issued by Opposite party.
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. Premjithlal (Complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
RW1.Sreeram.K.K.Divisional Manager.
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded /By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
