United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs T. THOMAS

THE 1st complainant''s vehicle bearing Regn. No. KL 5-A 7475, Ambassador Nova, diesel car which was purchased by availing hire purchase loan from the 2nd complainant was stolen when it was kept in the garage between 6 p.m. on 8.6.1995 and 6 a.m. on 9.6.1995. A police complaint was lodged. THE police issued a non-traceable certificate. THE opposite party, when claim as preferred, rejected the same on condition that the complainant had violated the 5th condition of the policy. THE rejection of the claim amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint.

THE opposite parties contended that there was an inexplicable delay in lodging the complaint. THE owner of the vehicle never took any steps nor participated in the processing of the complaint. THE owner had not even reported the loss of the vehicle to the police. THE fitness certificate had expired by 3.5.1995. THE vehicle was kept in a bad condition. THE complainant is not entitled to any relief. The lower Forum rejected the contentions of the opposite party and awarded the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards claim with interest @ 12% p.a. along with a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Hence the present appeal.

There are certain features in this case which require to be taken note of. As to the date when the vehicle was stolen, there is no definite data or material produced. The complaint has been given only by the 2nd complainant who is at Madras. The 1st complainant is the owner who is residing in Puthangadu, Kottayam, Kerala. The vehicle is said to have been lost when it was kept in his garage. In the complaint, it is stated that the said vehicle was stolen when it was kept in the garage between 6 p.m. on 8.6.1995 and 6 a.m. on 9.6.1995. If it is so, it is not known why the 1st complainant has not chosen to give any complaint. He being the owner of the property and the property have been lost while in his custody, one would expect him to make a complaint to the policy immediately. But, he has kept quiet. It is also not known how the 2nd complainant came to know of the theft of the vehicle. This aspect is also not touched upon at all by the complainant. The police complaint is given only by the 2nd complainant and that too from Chennai on 9.6.1995. In the police complaint given by him also it is not stated as to when exactly the theft took place. It is simply stated that they came to know through their hirer Mr. T. Thomas that the said car has been stolen by somebody. How they came to know? Was there any letter or was it informed over telephone? Nothing is mentioned in this letter. The complaint also does not give any reason as to why the complainant did not and could not prefer a complaint to the local police immediately. If really, a theft had taken place, one would expect the owner of the vehicle to make a complaint to the police and also when the vehicle is insured prefer a claim to the Insurance Company. But, strangely, the 1st complainant does not do either. It is only the 2nd complainant who has chosen to make a complaint to the Insurance Company on 13.6.1995. In that letter, strangely it is stated that the hirer informed that the vehicle was stolen by somebody on 8.6.1995. It is not known why it was not so stated when the 2nd complainant made a complaint to the police whereas in the complaint it is stated that the vehicle was stolen between 6 p.m. on 8.6.1995 and 6 a.m. on 9.6.1995. The mere fact that the Insurance Company has written a letter on 15.10.1996 asking the 1st complainant to produce certain documents to process the claim will not go to show that there is acceptance of the claim by them or that they admit the averments made in the complaint with regard to theft and loss. The opposite parties have also taken the plea that there was no valid fitness certificate for the vehicle and that the fitness certificate had expired on 3.5.1995 more than a month prior to the alleged loss and that there was no valid permit on the date of loss. Neither the 1st complainant nor the 2nd complainant have chosen to produce any documents to establish that there was valid permit and there was a valid fitness certificate as on the date when the vehicle was lost. The 2nd complainant has taken a strange stand to contend that the permit and fitness certificate need not be produced because the vehicle at the time of the theft was garaged in the house and it was stolen when it was not in use. Thus, the entire picture emerging from the narration of the facts set out above would show that there is something hanky panky in this matter. The lower Forum has not taken into consideration this aspect and have simply brushed them aside as of no consequence. The fact that it is alleged that the vehicle has been stolen within a month of taking up of the policy adds more colour to these suspicions. Strangely, the lower Forum would say that the vehicle has been stolen within a month of the date of the policy would only show that the version of the complainant should be true. On the other hand, coupled with the facts pointed out, it would be apparent that the circumstances pointed out if considered in the background of act that the vehicle is alleged to have been lost within the month of date of the policy would show all is not well with the claim. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the repudiation by the opposite parties cannot be held to be improper. It is the duty of the complainant to satisfy about the genuineness of the claim. On the other hand, the claim appears to be lacking good faith. Therefore, taking the broad aspects of this case, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the lower Forum cannot be accepted at all. It is to be pointed out that the so called F.I.R. alleged to have been registered is not produced. The 1st complainant refers to a non-traceable certificate alleged to have been issued by the Circle Inspector, Ettumanoor, Kerala. The said certificate is also not produced before the Commission. It is also not known whether the said certificate was produced before the Insurance Company. Therefore, in such circumstances, we are of the view that the complainants have failed to establish that there is a theft of the vehicle as alleged by them and, therefore, the complainants having failed to establish the very basis and as there are innumerable circumstances to point out that the complaint is bereft of good faith, we are of the view that the award passed by the lower Forum cannot be sustained.

IN the result, this appeal is allowed with cost of Rs. 250/-. The award passed by the lower Forum is set aside. The complaint stands dismissed without cost. Time for compliance: Two months. Appeal allowed.