This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 12-12-11 in the presence of Smt K. Syamala, advocate for complainant and of              Sri G. Sreenivasu, advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2, upon perusing the material on record after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking Rs.31,150/- together with interest at 24% pa., from 07-01-11 being value of the vehicle, Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are hereunder:

        The complainant is the owner of a two wheeler Hero Honda Passion Plus bearing No.AP 7 AQ 9751.   The complainant paid Rs.801/- towards insurance premium to the 1^st opposite party on           17-03-10. The 1^st opposite party issued policy bearing No.3005/11064872/10590/000.   The said insurance was valid from 17-03-10 to 16-03-11.   The complainant lost the said vehicle in Arundelpet, Guntur in front of Eenadu office between 2.00 pm and 3.30 pm on 07-01-11.   The complainant gave a written report to SHO, Arundelpet P.S. on 17-01-11 who in turn registered it as case in Cr.No.22/2011 u/s 379 IPC.   The complainant addressed a letter to the 1^st opposite party enclosing necessary documents for claiming amount.   The complainant on 02-02-11 also addressed a letter to RTA, Guntur.   On 27-04-11 the 1^st opposite party intimated repudiating its claim.   The repudiation of claim is not just and proper.   Due to the acts of opposite party the complaint suffered mental agony as well as monitory loss.   The key of the vehicle is still in the custody of the complainant.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.   The contention of the Opposite parties in brief is thus:

        The complaint is barred by limitation.   The opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service.   In case of theft or criminal act the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company in securing conviction of offenders.   In this case the complainant lodged report with the police 10 days after theft of the vehicle.   The complaint intimated theft of vehicle to the Opposite parties 10 days after theft.   Thus the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy.   The insured vehicle was unlocked by keeping the key in ignition.   The complainant failed to take minimum care to protect his vehicle.   The complainant failed to give immediate notice not only to the Opposite parties but also to the police.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.    Exs.A-1 to A-4 on behalf of complainant and Ex.B-1 on behalf of Opposite parties were marked.

5.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether the Opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
3. To what relief?

6.   POINT No.1:-     Ex.A-4 is the letter of the Opposite parties               under which they repudiated the complainant’s claim on 27-04-01.   The relevant portion in Ex.A-4 is extracted below for better appreciation:

        “1……………….

         2. We have to further draw your attention that the claim was intimated to the insurer after 10 days.   This is violation of policy terms and conditions.   As per policy terms – Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident loss or damage or theft in the event of any claim and hereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require.

        In the circumstances, you are, therefore, informed that the above captioned claim as made by you hereby stands repudiated’.

7.    Ex.A-2 is the copy of report given to police by the complainant on 17-01-11.   Ex.A-2 revealed that the complainant set the criminal law into motion 10 days after the loss of vehicle.   Ex.B-1 is the copy of terms of policy.   The relevant portion in Ex.B-1 is extracted below for better appreciation:

“CONDITIONS:

        This policy and the schedule shall be read together and any word or expression to which a specific meaning has been attached in any part of this policy of the schedule shall bear the same meaning wherever it may appear.

1. Notice shall be given in wiring to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require.   Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured.   Notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest or fatal injury in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy.   In case of theft or other criminal act which be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender.
2. ………………….
3. ………………….
4. The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. ……………………………”.

8.   Following the decision reported in M/s New India Insurance Company Limited vs.  Dharam Singh & another III (2006) CPJ 240 (NC) on 04-07-06 (FA.426/04) the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in New India Insurance Company Limited vs. Trilochan Jane in FA.No./321 of 2005 dated 09-12-09 held that the delay in giving report to police as well as to the insured is fatal to the case.

9.   In this case admittedly the complainant gave a report to police              10 days after the theft.   Taking a clue from the above decision the repudiation under Ex.A-4 is just and reasonable.   In view of afore mentioned discussion, we answer this point against the complainant.

10.  POINT No.2:-   In view of above finding, in the result the complainant is not entitled to any compensation much less costs on the petition.   We therefore answer this point against the complainant.

11.  POINT No.3:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 16^th day of              December, 2011.

MEMBER                           MEMBER                          PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties :  

     PRESIDENT