<br /> IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD<br /> C.C.No.50/06 <br /> Dated this, the 21st day of April 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ :PRESIDENT<br /> SMT.P.RAMADEVI :MEMBER<br /> SMT.P.P.SHYMAKLADEVI :MEMBER<br /> <br /> Choori Usman,<br /> S/o late Abdulla Haji,Proprietor,<br /> R/at Mariyam Villa,Santhosh Nagar, : Complainant<br /> Chengala,Kasaragod.<br /> <br /> United India Insurance Co.Ltd, : Opposite party <br /> M.G.Road,Kasaragod.<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> <br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT.<br /> The case of the complainant is that his Maruthi Alto car bearing Reg.No.KL-14/E 1409 insured with opposite party was forcefully taken away by some miscreants. He immediately approached the Opposite party and opposite party advised complainant to trace out the car with police aid or get a report of non detection from the authorities to issue claim form. Accordingly the complainant obtained a report and produced it before the opposite party. But opposite party refused claim form. Hence the complainant alleges deficiency in service and prays for an order claiming the price of the vehicle along with a compensation of Rs.100000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-.<br /> Opposite party resists the claim and contends that the complainant violated policy conditions and suppressed material facts. The complainant did not served immediate notice regarding the loss of vehicle. According to opposite party the complainant was having financial dealings with the persons who took away the car with the aid of police officials since the complainant was wanted in a criminal case registered in Punalur Police station. Complainant suppressed this transaction and he also knows the location of the car where it is kept. Hence the opposite party is not liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss of the car.<br /> Evidence in this case consists of the affidavit filed by the complainant and documents Exts.A1 to A7. Opposite party produced Exts.B1 to B6 in support of their contentions.<br /> The points to be considered in this case are:-<br /> 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> 2) What relief as to cost and compensation?<br /> <br /> We heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the notes of argument filed by counsel for opposite party Sri.C. Damodaran ,<br /> Against the contention of the opposite party that the complainant has not served any immediate notice regarding the loss of the vehicle , complainant refutes that as advised by opposite party in order to trace out the car he filed Ext.A1 complaint on 14/2/05 before the Magistrate Court and Ext.A2 petition on 14/6/05 for a direction to issue a search warrant. Proceedings inExt.A2 was closed by the Ld.Magistrate on 25/10/05. So it is clear that the complainant was diligent in prosecuting the matter as instructed by opposite party and it is probable that he might have approached opposite party after obtaining Ext.A7. But the denial of claim form was the result. The complainant recoursed the legal proceedings and it resulted in the issuance of Ext.A6 dtd.1/12/05. So the contention of the opposite party that there is no immediate notice is not true.<br /> During hearing the counsel for the complainant Sri.A.N Ashok Kumar emphasized that the non-issuance of claim form itself is a deficiency in service and the merits of the claim ought to have been considered during the processing of claim made by the complainant. We find considerable force in this submission . On perusal of Exts.B1 to B6 it is clear that the Opposite party went on probe in to the disputed matter without issuing claim form. Even a special investigator’s report(Exts.B1 & B4 series) was obtained..<br /> <br /> On an appraisal of the facts narrated we holds that after pocketing the premium it was incumbent upon opposite party to issue claim form to the complainant when demanded. The non supply of claim form amounts to deficiency in service.<br /> Hence we direct the Opposite party to issue a claim form to the complainant and process his claims on the basis of the documents produced by him. Complainant shall submit all the requisite documents with opposite party within one month after getting claim form. The opposite party shall pay Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation cost to the complainant<br /> Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Failing which the complainant can initiate proceedings under section 25 and 27 of C.P.Act.<br /> Sd/ Sd/ Sd/<br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER<br /> <br /> Documents of the complainant<br /> A1-dt.14/2/05- copy of complaint filed by the complainant before the Judicial Ist <br /> Class Magistrate Court Kasaragod.<br /> A2-dt.14/6/05-copy of petition for a direction to issue a search warrant<br /> A3-13/9/04- receipt of the policy<br /> A4-Copy of R.C<br /> A5-16/2/05-copy of letter issued by the complainant to the Manager,Ashok <br /> Leyland finance,Kanhangad.<br /> A6-1/12/05-copy of letter issued by complainant to the Opposite party<br /> A7-25/10/05- copy of order issued by Judicial First Class Magistrate <br /> Court,Kasaragod.<br /> Documents of the opposite party:<br /> B1-dt.3/2/06- Investigator’s report<br /> B2-dt.15/12-04-petition filed by the complainant before the Supt. Of Police <br /> Kasaragod. <br /> B3-19/12/04- -do-<br /> B4series-statements recorded by Investigator<br /> B5 series- copy of paper cuttings.<br /> B6-copy of the policy.<br /> <br /> eva/<br /> /forwarded by Order/<br /> <br /> <br /> SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT<br />