UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SENTHILKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite parties in C.O.P. No. 268/2001 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli, are the appellants herein. The case of the complainant was as follows: (a) He purchased a Mahindra van under loan from Indian Overseas Bank, Tenkasi at 16% interest on 7.9.2000. It was insured with the opposite parties during the period 11.9.2000 to 10.9.2001. On 7/8.3.2001 the vehicle was stolen. This was reported to Tenkasi Police Station. FIR was lodged and it was registered as Crime No. 130/2001. The police informed the complainant that the vehicle had been trace and asked the complainant to get it from the Magistrate's Court. The complainant made an application to the Magistrate for custody of the vehicle. The Court dismissed the petition stating that the registration number, the colour of the vehicle, the engine number and chassis number produced in Court differed from the complainant's vehicle alleged to have been stolen. There was a separate engine inside the van which tallied with the engine number of the stolen vehicle. The Magistrate having come to the conclusion that the stolen vehicle and the vehicle recovered were not one and the same dismissed the petition. The complainant was pressing the opposite parties to pay the insurance amount with interest. There was no tangible reply received. A notice was issued. Opposite party No. 1 sent a reply demanding production of non -traceable certificate from the police and the Criminal Court's records for the finalisation of the case. There was no condition in the policy about the non -traceable certificate. The order of the Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi, was also clear. The non -settlement of the claim was deficiency in service.

(2.) OPPOSITE party No. 2 filed a version which was adopted by the other opposite parties. The complainant submitted the claim form except the non -traceable certificate from the police and from the Court. It was one of the essential and important documents. In para 9 of the judgment, the criminal Court has held that since he final disposal was not made in the case and that only after elaborate inquiry it could be decided if the said vehicle could be returned to the complainant. The matter was sub judice. The complainant had given a letter dated 30.5.2001 to the opposite parties admitting that te point had traced his stolen vehicle that instead of the new engine, an old engine was fixed and that the new engine was also brought in the van. He had stated that some of the parts had been changed. The Magistrate himself had come to the conclusion that the stolen vehicle and the recovered vehicle were not one and the same. It was not correct. To the lawyer's notice a suitable reply was sent. There was no deficiency in service.

(3.) BEFORE the District Forum on the side of the complainant Exs. A1 to A5 were marked while on the side of the opposite parties Ex. B1 was marked.