IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 27922 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NOUSHAD KHALID, KODIYIL HOUSE ERAVIPURAM PO. KOLLAM-691011. BY ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JYOTHI SUPER BAZAR, THODUPUZHA-685584. ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/08/2009 THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 27922/2008 -------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VAN. EXT.P2 FIR OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION. EXT.P3 LETER DT. 8-11-2006. EXT.P4 LETTER DT. 12-12-2006 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER. EXT.P6 COPY OF INSURANCE CLAIM COVER NOTE. EXT.P7 CLAIM FORM PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8 FIR IN CR. 294/06 OF VATTIYOORKAVU P.S EXT.P9 CHARGE SHEET IN CR. 294/06. EXT.P10 DENIAL LETTER DT. 15-5-2008. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 27922 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 14th August, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by repudiation of his insurance claim in respect of theft of his vehicle. The contention of the petitioner is that it has been repudiated on the ground that there have been some discrepancies in the two FIRs filed by the petitioner before two Police Stations. According to the petitioner, going by the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd v. Nitin Kandelwal, 2008 (2) KHC 900 (S.C), in case of theft, the nature of use of vehicle cannot be looked into and the Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim. The Insurance Company contends that the question as to whether there was theft at all is very much in doubt. They point out that in Ext. P2 complaint, which itself was filed after five days of the theft, the time of theft is stated to be between 9 p.m. on 2-11-2006 and 7 a.m. on 3-11-2006. In the second FIR before another Police Station, which is Ext. P8, the petitioner has given the time of theft to be between 3.30 p.m. and 7 p.m. on 2-11- 2006. It is further submitted by the counsel for the Insurance Company that the petitioner has not informed the Insurance Company about the theft within a reasonable time and it took 13 days for him to inform the Insurance Company about the theft. He also submits that the place of theft given in Ext. P2 FIR and Ext. P8 FIR differs. 2. After hearing both sides, in view of the fact that there are very serious disputed questions of fact, it is only appropriate that the W.P.C. No. 27922/08 -: 2 :- petitioner seeks his remedies in a forum, where he can adduce evidence in support of his contention. Therefore, without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/