This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 15-12-11 in the presence of Sri V. Suri Babu, advocate for complainant and of              Sri V. Nageswara Rao, 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 CPA seeking Rs.35,000/- being the assured amount; Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.30,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses.

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

        Being owner of the motor cycle bearing No.AP 7AP 2957 the complainant insured it with the 2^nd opposite party vide policy No.150801/31/08/01/00005958 covering the risk from 25-12-08 to 24-12-09.   The complainant kept his vehicle near Guntur bus station and was doing business as usual.   At about 7.00 pm the complainant after closing business while going home found his vehicle missed.   The efforts of the complainant for tracing his vehicle were of no use.   Immediately the complainant gave a report on 13-09-09 itself.   But the police failed to register the report given by the complainant till 20-12-09.   Thereafter on the instructions of the Superintendent of police the SHO, Old Guntur Crime PS registered it as Cr.No.96 of 2009.   The complainant informed about the loss of his vehicle to 2^nd opposite party on 17-09-09.   The complainant submitted FIR and final report to the 2^nd opposite party for taking necessary action.    On 01-06-11 the 2^nd opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground of discrepancy of the dates mentioned in FIR.   The opposite parties failed to give reply to the notice of the complainant.   The repudiation of claim by the opposite party on improper grounds amounted to deficiency of service.

3.   The 2^nd opposite party filed memo adopting the version of the                1^st opposite party and their contention in brief is thus: 

        The complainant on 17-09-09 gave a report to the 2^nd opposite party about misplacing his vehicle on 13-09-09 at about 7.00 pm and on 15-09-09 giving report to the police.   The complaint submitted copy of FIR without written report given by him.   In the police record it was mentioned that the vehicle was stolen on 13-11-09.   Since the date of alleged theft differs from the intimation date with the contents of the FIR the 2^nd opposite party repudiated it.   The complainant kept quite for about three months for submitting copy of FIR.   The repudiation of claim by the opposite party is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy.   The opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.   Exs.A-1 to A-9 and Ex.B-1 on behalf of the complainant and opposite party were marked respectively.

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:-     The complainant obtaining policy from the opposite parties to his vehicle bearing No. AP 7AP 2957 and the policy in force by 13-09-09 are not in dispute.  The complainant on 17-09-09 giving intimation about loss of vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party is also not in dispute (Ex.A-3).    Under Ex.A-7 the 2^nd opposite party on 01-06-11 repudiated the claim on the ground of discrepancy of dates mentioned in the FIR and in Ex.A-3. 

7.   The complainant in para III (b) of his complaint mentioned the following:

        “On 13-09-09 in the evening hours, the complainant was stationed his vehicle near Guntur bus station and doing his business as usually.   On the same day at about 7.00 pm after completion of his business, the complainant when ready to go to his house, he found that his motor cycle was misplaced.   The efforts of the complainant for tracing out his vehicle were off no use.   Immediately, the complainant approached the S.H.O. of Old Guntur Crime PS., Guntur and presented a report for missing of his vehicle on the same day itself i.e., on 13-09-09”.    It was so mentioned in his evidence affidavit also by the complainant.   But in Exs.A-2 to A-4 the complainant categorically mentioned that he gave report to the police on 15-09-09 only.   The averments in Exs.A-2 to A-4 falsified the contention of the complainant about he giving report to the police on 13-09-09 itself.  Thus there was a delay of two days in giving report to the police.  The complainant thus approached this Forum with untrue state of things.    

8.    Ex.A-1 insurance policy between the complainant and the opposite party is a contractual one as rightly contended by the opposite party.   On the aspect of delay the opposite party relied on the decision reported in FA.No.321 of 2005 decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 09-12-09.

9.   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.

10.    The relevant portion in Ex.B-1 regarding conditions is mentioned below:

“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 or of the schedule shall bear the same meaning wherever it may appear.

1. Notice shall be given in writing 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. ……………………………”.

12.   The complainant did not follow the condition laid down in the policy and as such the repudiation by the opposite party is proper.   Therefore we hold that the opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service and answer this point against the complainant.

13.  POINT No.2:-   In view of above finding the complainant is not entitled to any damages.   We therefore answer this point also against the complainant.

14.   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