O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainant against the OP in brief is that he is the owner of a CANTER vehicle bearing No:KA-02 AA 6628 that he had insured that vehicle with the OP with effect from 19/01/2008 to 18/01/2009 with declared value of Rs.3,50,000/-. That he was parking his vehicle from the past 8 years in a cross road, on 12/07/2008 he had parked that vehicle at about 9.00 PM and he had also appointed a watchman to look after the vehicle. At about 4.30 AM on 13/07/2008 his watchman informed him about missing of that vehicle. All original documents were in the vehicle. He gave a Police complaint on 13/07/2008 regarding theft who had registered a case. That he also intimated the R.T.O concerned not to extend duplicate copy of the vehicle records. The Police after investigation submitted “C” final report to the concerned court on 03/01/2009 and he made out a claim application to the OP on 22/01/2009 OP rejected his claim for insured value on 20/02/2009. The OP without considering the facts of this case has rejected his claim, which amounts to deficiency and has prayed for direction to OP to pay him the declared value of the vehicle Rs.3,50,000/- and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with other expenditure with interest.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> OP has filed version through his advocate admitting that the vehicle in question was insured with them and policy was in effect from 19/01/2008 to 18/01/2009. It is contended that liability is as per the terms and conditions of the policy and the complaint is not maintainable. It is further contended that the complainant has informed them on 22/01/2009 stating that lorry was stolen on 12/07/2008. They appointed an investigator to investigate the claim who has submitted his report expressing doubt about the claim of the complainant and also referred to serious doubt expressed by the concerned police who took up the investigation regarding theft. That inspite of reminder the complainant did not produce original documents including two ignition key expressing their concern that vehicle could not have been taken in the circumstances that was parked and without the original key and that delay of several months informing them has caused serious doubt regarding theft and calling this claim as a fraudulent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In the course of enquiry into this complaint, the complainant <br /> <br /> and one D.Sharadi Shayana for OP have filed their affidavit evidence. The complainant has produced a copy of RC, Insurance Policy, FIR, a copy of complaint he filed to the Police, a copy of a letter he sent to RTO then to the OP and letter of repudiation issued by the OP. OP has produced copy of a policy issued to the complainant as a insured which contain terms and conditions of the policy with a copy of the investigation report of their investigation officer and copy of “C” final report filed by the concerned police. We have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> On the above contentions following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that OP has caused deficiency in their service in repudiating his claim for reimbursing him the value of the stolen vehicle?.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Answer on point No:1 In the negative .<br /> <br /> Answer on Point No:2 To see the final order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS:<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Answer on point No:1: The complainant was the owner of canter vehicle bearing No:KA-02 AA 6628 was insured with OP 1 and it had valid and effective insurance as on the date of alleged theft that at 4.30 AM of 13/07/2008 he is not at all in dispute as the OP has denied it. The complainant has come with this complaint when his claim for payment of insurance value made to OP on 22/01/2009 was repudiated by the OP through their letter dtd:20/02/2009. It is the case of the complainant that the vehicle parked on public road was stolen on 13/07/2008 at 4.30 AM as informed by his watchman and stated to had filed a complaint to the Police on the same day and also sent a letter to the concerned RTO not to issue duplicate documents of the vehicle and the police filed “C” final report and therefore, prayed for relief against the OP whereas the OP has contended that there has been un due delay in informing them about the theft and the report that their investigation officer and the investigating Police prepared expressed doubt of the story of theft and therefore have rejected the claim of the complainant.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> It is seen that the complainant was though informed of theft by his watchman at 4.30 AM on 13/07/2008 and he preferred to file a complaint to the concerned police on 13/07/2008 at 11.00 AM. The complainant has not given reason as to why did he not immediately file the complaint to the Police. Of course he has stated to had sent a letter to the concerned RTO informing them. If any one approach them for collecting duplicate documents to stop the proceeding and not to issue without his presence. This letter is given on 16/07/2008. In this letter he has not at all mentioned regarding theft of the vehicle and he never informed the OP about the theft of the vehicle until he made a claim for payment of insured value on 22/01/2009. The complainant has neither in the complaint nor in his affidavit evidence has stated to had informed the insurance company at any time until he made a claim on 22/01/2009. The complainant has also not given any reasons acceptable in not informing the OP regarding theft of the vehicle. The OP on receipt of a claim from the complainant on 22/01/2009 OP points their own investigation officer namely V.Shyam Sundar who after taking up the investigation submitted his report which contain certain observations regarding the position of parking the vehicles, impossibleness of removing the vehicle from the line of parked vehicles without the original key and also has referred to the observation of the Police Officer who investigated the theft and stated that theft was of a serious doubt. On perusal of the “C” final report copy produced by the complainant himself, it is found that the investigation officer who has visited spot also has observed that number of vehicles were parked in the line on public road, very close to each other and it was difficult to take out a vehicle parked in the middle in emergency or urgently and therefore, the police officer and investigation officer of the OP have expressed their doubt about the possibility of removal of the stolen vehicle. In that situation all these factors canvased by the OP are not at all met by the complainant by rebuttal evidence. The vehicle Policy issued to the complainant contain terms and conditions of the policy. In the copy of the policy produced by the OP in which we find certain conditions under general exceptions one of such conditions are that insured is commanded to give a notice in writing to the OP immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or such other loss and may make claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such assistance. But in the case on hand the complainant did not inform the OP about the theft. Therefore this omission of the complainant has denied an opportunity to the OP to have recourse to take up their own action or procedure to investigate into the theft e.t.c., The OP therefore, considering the doubtfulness of the theft of the vehicle and delay in informing about the theft have rejected the claim of the complainant.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The learned counsel appearing for the complainant relying upon a decision of the National Commission reported in I (2009) CPJ Page 131 and 188 and a Supreme Court Judgment reported in IV (2008) CPJ 1 and I (2009) CPJ page 123 and two more of the similar decisions and argued that the OP the insurance company is liable to indemnity the complainant who is the owner when he lost the insured vehicle in theft and the claim cannot be rejected. But the decisions relied upon the counsel for the complainant are not applicable to the facts of this case. Because the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision referred to above has hold that breach of policy condition not germane in case of theft of vehicle and further held when theft is proved even after there is breach of policy conditions the claim has to be settled on non standard basis. The other decisions relied upon by him are also regarding breach of the policy conditions and not similar to the one we are dealing with.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The counsel for the OP by relying upon a decision of Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Lucknow reported in II (2001) CPJ page 453 argued that delay in informing the insurance company a theft in a shop belies the claim of the complainant and therefore, submitted for dismissal of the complaint. In this decision the State Commission has held that in the absence of plausible explanation by the complainant regarding delay in reporting theft to the insurance company, the claim of the insured cannot be held as genuine and therefore rejected the claim of the insured. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we find no reasons or explanation given by the complainant regarding certain hours of delay in giving police complaint, not bringing to the notice of the insurance company regarding theft., not assigning reasons in not handing over original ignition keys and not rebutting doubts of theft expressed all contribute to the doubt regarding theft of the vehicle and as such we find no deficiency in the service of OP and by answering Point no:1 in the negative hold that the complainant is liable to be dismissed and pass the following order. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 08th March 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />