ABDUL AZEEZ RASHEED Vs. DIRECTOR OF INSURANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant purchased a LMV Goods Carriage KL-01 /4122 which is under hypothecation to Kerala Financial Corporation, the second respondent herein. The vehicle was covered with a valid insurance policy for the period from 17.7.1990 to 15.7.1991. Exbt. R-1 is the certificate of insurance. Exbt. R-1 shows the vehicle insured was the one with registration No. KL-01 /4122. Address of the insured is shown as A. Rasheed, Thushara Manzil, Elavattom P. O. , Palode. The vehicle was stolen between 10.1.1991 10.30 p. m. and 11.1.1991 7 a. m. The complainant lodged a complaint before the Nedumangad Police Station and a Crime was registered by that Police Station as Crime No.9/91 for an offence of theft. Exbt. P-1 is the First Information Report. It appears that Ned umangad Police filed a report before the Judicial IInd Class Magistrate Court, Nedumangad stating that inspite of best efforts they could not detect the accused. Exbt. P-2 is the said report.

(2.) The complainant made a claim before the first respondent supported by copies of documents filed before the Court and documents of vehicle. The grievance of the complainant is that the first respondent sent a letter dated, 22.8.1991 refusing to honour the claim. It is in those circumstances, this complaint is filed.

(3.) The first opposite party, namely the Director of Insurance, filed a version in which it is contended that the complaint is not maintainable. The allegation that the vehicle was lost by way of theft was disputed. It is further stated that the Forest Range Officer, Palode by his letter dated 27.4.1992 intimated the opposite party that the vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-01/4122 owned by Rasheed was used for illicit transport of timber from the Forest area within the jurisdiction of Palode Range, that therefore the vehicle was liable to be confiscated under Sec.61-A of the Kerala Forest Act and that in the circumstances, the amount claimed towards insurance policy may not be released to the owner of the vehicle. They also stated that the allegation of the complainant that the vehicle was stolen is false and untrue. According to the first opposite party they could not honour the Insurance claim by reason of the above facts.