IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 OP.No. 17022 of 2001(B) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. NPR FINANCE LTD., CENTRAL ZONE APATMENTS, 2ND FLOOR, 2-B, AMANCOVIL ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, EBENEZER GARDEN, NEAR EDAPPALLY HIGH SCHOOL, ERNAKULAM. 2. M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, MUTHOOT TOWERS, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM – 682 035. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ORIENTAL (HOUSE) ASAT ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI – 110002. 4. ABDUL LATHIF, SAREENA MANZIL (CO JUNCTION), PERUNNA, CHANGANASSERY. [DELETED] 5. THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM. 6. THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TRIVANDRUM. R4 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DT.15-2-2008 IN THE O.P. ADV. SRI.MGK.MENON FOR R1,2,3, THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 17022/2001. ---------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF INSURANCE POLICY. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF FIR. EXT.P3 DULY FILLED UP MOTOR CLAIM FORM. EXT.P4 COVERING LETTER DT. 23-2-1999. EXT.P5 NON-GRACEABLE CERTIFICATE DT. 8-9-1998. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF O.P.NO. 1390/99. EXT.P7 JOINT VERSION FILED BY R1 TO R3. EXT.P8 ORDER DT. 2-5-2000. EXT.P9 ORDER DT. 18-12-2000. EXT.P10 FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 165/98 [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 17022 of 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 21st December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, a Company having its registered office at Calicut and a branch office at Ernakulam, is engaged in the business of financing purchase of motor vehicles. The petitioner financed the 4th respondent for purchase of a vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL7-E/6417 in the name of the 4th respondent as per a hire purchase agreement. The hire purchase agreement was endorsed in the registration certificate also. As per the contract between the petitioner and the 4th respondent, the entire hire purchase price was paid by the 4th respondent and the petitioner would continue to be the owner and the 4th respondent, the hirer. That vehicle was insured with the 1st respondent as per Policy No. 1998/2106, the validity of which was current from 22-8-1997 to 21-8-1998. On 21-3-1998, the vehicle was stolen from the possession of the 4th respondent at a place near Parel Church, Changanassery. The 4th respondent intimated the theft to respondents 1 to 3 and also filed a criminal complaint before the Changanasery Police, which was registered as Crime No. 165/98 under Section 379 of the IPC, the FIR in which is Ext. P2. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed an insurance claim before the 1st respondent. Since respondents 1 to 3 were protracting processing of the same, the petitioner filed Ext. P6 complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. In the same, respondents 1 to 3 filed a joint version, in which they admitted the existence of the policy. But they took the contention that since investigation by the Police is in progress and final report has not been filed by the Police, the complaint is premature. Accepting this contention, by Ext. P8 order, the 5th respondent-Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam dismissed the complaint. Petitioner's appeal, viz, appeal No. O.P.. No. 17022/01 -: 2 :- 1048/2000 was dismissed by Ext. P9. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this original petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Call for the records leading Ext.P8 and P9 and quash the same, by issue of a writ of certiorari or other writ, order or direction. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other writ, order or direction compelling the respondents 1 to 3 to disburse the compensation payable to the petitioner claimed under Ext. P6.” 2. The petitioner now contends that subsequent to filing of the original petition, by Ext. P10 produced along with I.A.No. 4862/2006, the Police has filed a final report before the Magistrate's Court, wherein they have stated that in spite of intense investigation, evidence could not be collected and therefore permission has been sought from the Magistrate for incorporating the case in the list of undetected cases. Therefore, according to the petitioner, respondents 1 to 3 cannot further protract the payment of the insurance amount to the petitioner, is the submission made by the petitioner. 3. Although respondents 1 to 3 have entered appearance, they have not chosen to file any counter affidavit. Since they have admitted the policy, they cannot deny liability to pay the insurance amount. The petitioner has now produced Ext. P10 copy of the final report of the Police. The same is sufficient to process the claim of the petitioner. Accordingly, this original petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to process the claim of the petitioner and to O.P.. No. 17022/01 -: 3 :- pay the insurance amount, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/