N. KANNADASAN, J. - (1.) The appellant is the complainant and the respondents are the opposite parties before the District Forum.
(2.) The complaint is filed before the District Forum under the following circumstances: The complainant is the owner of the public transport vehicle, which was insured with the opposite party, and the policy cover was valid from 15.7.98 to 14.7.99. According to the complainant, the vehicle was stolen on 28.11.98 and a complaint was given to the Parasala police station (Kerala) and a case was registered in crime No.472/98. The complainant filed a claim petition to the opposite party and it was repudiated for not producing the fitness certificate. According to the complainant, fitness certificate was ot renewed as the vehicle was not plying on the road for quiet sometime and it was engaged for residential use. 2. The opposite party resisted the complaint on the ground that there is a delay of 8 days in filing an FIR, and there is violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, in as much as the complainant has not renewed the fitness certificate.
(3.) The District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the ground that there is a violation of the Motor Vehicle Act and also for non-joinder of a necessary party viz. the financier, who has got a Hire Purchase Agreement.;