IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 10463 of 2007(U) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ABDUL SALAM,S/O.MOHAMMED,MOOLAYIL HOUSE, MOORKANAD,OORNGATIRI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- THE ORINETAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER,BRANCH OFFICE, JASELA COMPLEX,NILAMBUR ROAD,MANJERI. R1 by ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP.(C) NO.10463/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE. P2:- COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.241/02 OF MANJERI POLCIE STATION DTD. 8.4.02. P3:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 21.11.2006 ISSUED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLCIE MANJERI TO THE PETITIONER. P4:- COPY OF THE INSURANCE POLICY CERTIFICATE. P5:- COPY OF THE PREMIUM PAYMENT RECEIPT DTD. 2.4.02. P6:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 27.12.06 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. P7:- COPY OF THE RESPONSE LETTER DTD. 1.1.07 OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a):- COPY OF THE LETTER BY PETITIONER DTD. 8.4.03. R1(b):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 28.4.03 BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. R1(c):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 5.2.04 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 10463 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he is the registered owner of a 1998 model 800 CC Maruthi Car bearing Regn.No.KL-10 G 9999. Referring to Exts.P4 and P5, counsel submits that the vehicle was insured with the respondent Company. While so, according to the petitioner, on 8/4/2002, the vehicle was stolen. According to the petitioner, he reported the matter to the police and two persons were arrested. The Case was chargesheeted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Manjeri. However, one of the accused was discharged. Since the other accused absconded, now the charge in so far as he is concerned, has been split up and the case is now kept as LP 39/04. 2. Though belatedly, on 27/4/2003, petitioner submitted a claim for damages admissible under the policy of insurance, according to the petitioner, there was no response to the damages claimed by him. It is stated that thereafter he made Ext.P6 application under the Right to Information Act, to which he was issued Ext.P7 reply stating that on receipt of the claim, WPC No. 10463/07 :2 : respondent had called upon the petitioner to produce additional documents and as the petitioner did not produce those documents, the claim was closed on 26/3/2004. 3. While the petitioner contends so, the insurance company in the counter affidavit has taken the stand that on receipt of Ext.R1(a) claim, on the same day, namely on 8/4/2003 itself, they issued Ext.R1(b) letter requiring the petitioner to produce certain documents, to proceed further with the claim. According to the respondent, there was no response to Ext.R1(b) and therefore they issued Ext.R1(c) in February, 2004 informing the petitioner that if he does not produce the documents within 15 days of receipt of the letter, they will have no option but to treat the matter as closed. It is stated that there was no response to Ext.R1(c) either and that it was therefore that they closed the claim made by the petitioner. 4. During the course of the hearing, counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contention that the petitioner was not served with Ext.R1(b) or R1(c). It is stated that it was therefore that he could not produce the documents. Counsel submits that the petitioner is willing to produce the documents, and therefore, WPC No. 10463/07 :3 : should be given an opportunity to substantiate his claim before the respondent and the respondent should be directed to reconsider the claim. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner submitted Ext.R1(a) claim with the respondent and according to the respondent, by Ext.R1 (b) and R1(c), petitioner was called upon to produce additional documents. Respondent has not produced anything to substantiate its contentions that Exts.R1(b) and R1(c) were served on the petitioner, and that, it was despite such service, that the petitioner did not produce the documents. Even otherwise, if such a communication has been served, no prudent man would have declined to produce those documents having regard to the fact that non production would have resulted in rejection of the claim itself. 6. Therefore, I am inclined to think that it is more probable that the petitioner would not have received Ext.R1(b) or R1(c). In that view of the mater, I feel the petitioner should be given an opportunity to produce documents mentioned in Ext.R1 (b) and (c) and if the petitioner produces those documents, respondent should reconsider the claim of the petitioner for WPC No. 10463/07 :4 : compensation for the loss of his vehicle. 7. Therefore, I direct that if the petitioner produces documents mentioned in Ext.R1(b) and R1(c) within four weeks from today, the respondent shall reconsider the insurance claim made by the petitioner and orders thereon will be passed at any rate within 8 weeks thereafter. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim lodged by the petitioner and it is entirely for the respondent to decide the issue. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp