STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/213/2018 null THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - PARAMESWARAN PILLAI BHAVAN, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOLLAM-

691001. ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus SAJAN XAVIER PRESENT ADDRESS - SAJAN NIVAS, PALLITHOTTAM CHERRY, KOLLAM. ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 213/2018 JUDGMENT DATED : 13.05.2025 (Against the order in C.C. No.76/2015 on the files of DCDRC, Kollam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANT:

The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Parameswaran Pillai Bhavan, Hospital Road, Kollam – 691 001 (by Adv. Prasanna Kumar Nair)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Sajan Xavier, S/o Raphel, Sajan Nivas, Pallithottam Cherry, Kollam West

Village, Kollam Taluk

(by Adv. Jwala K.P. and Adv. Threya J. Pillai)

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in C.C.No.76/2015 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam (for short, ‘the District Commission’).

2. The complainant is the owner of a Bajaj Pulsor motor cycle bearing registration No. KL 02 AM 8052. The opposite party is the insurer of the said vehicle. The insurance policy was valid for the period from 11.01.2014 to 10.01.2015. The policy was a comprehensive policy. The insured value of the vehicle was Rs. 62,622/- (Rupees Sixty Two Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Two only). While so, the vehicle was stolen on 20.04.2014 between 6.30 p.m and 7.10 p.m. when the complainant parked the vehicle at the parking area near Jalakelekendam, Kollam. Immediately after the loss of the vehicle, the matter was informed to the Police. On the next day, the theft was intimated to the opposite party. The complainant was advised by the opposite party to inform the matter to the Police and RTO.

3. On 22.04.2014 at 10.15 a.m., the Kollam Police registered crime No.770/2014 under Section 379 IPC in connection with the above theft. The Kollam Police, after investigation, submitted a UN report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Kollam. Thereafter, the complainant sent a lawyer notice on

14.01.2015 to the opposite party demanding compensation. However, no compensation was given to the complainant.

4. The opposite party filed a version admitting the policy coverage of the vehicle. However, the opposite party contended that the complainant had kept the vehicle in a public place, which was not even meant for parking vehicles, without ensuring its safety. As per the specific condition in the policy, in case of loss of vehicle by theft or other incident, the insured shall submit the claim in writing to the opposite party immediately after the occurrence of the alleged theft/incident. In this case, the complainant failed to inform in writing to the opposite party as stipulated in the policy condition. Though the alleged incident occurred on 20.04.2014, the matter was reported to the Police only on 22.04.2014. The insured also failed to submit the claim in writing to the opposite party at any time before or after reporting the incident to the police. The opposite party got intimation regarding the alleged incident on the basis of the legal notice dated 14.01.2015 issued by the complainant through his lawyer which was 8 months after the occurrence. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

5. Before the District Commission, PW1 and PW2 were examined. Exhibits P1 to P7 were also marked for the complainant. DW1 was examined and Exhibit D1 was marked for the opposite party. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the opposite party to pay Rs.62,622/- (Rupees Sixty