3

Kadapa from Mydukur. He did not inform to the neighbour passengers and did not

enquire the passengers after he lost the cameras. The place of his seat in the bus

was at a distance of 3 meters from the driver. The bus No. and statement of the T.V

people were not given. He managed to file the referred charge sheet. The notice given

by the complainant was with malifide intention to clear off the loan. The R1 was an

un-necessary party. There was a condition in the policy that in case of theft the

complainant had to bear 25% on the claim amount as per excess clause imposed. So

the complainant was not entitled to 100% loss. The bills were not submitted except

quotation showed the cost of camera was Rs. 32,000/- and another camera was

Rs. 25,000/-. The complainant might have claimed 3/4 on Rs. 32,000/- camera in

case of theft. The other items shown in the quotation was not insured. The claim of

the complainant was heavy and hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for

determination.

i. Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the

part of the respondents?

ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

iii. To what relief?

6. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A9 were marked and on behalf of

the respondents Ex. B1 to B4 were marked.

7. Point No. 1 & 2 The complainant availed a loan of Rs. 90,000/- under

Rajiv Yuva Sakthi self employment scheme for starting a digital photo studio in

Mydukur. He was a journalist to Eenadu daily and E.TV news contributor. The R1

bank sanctioned the loan and insisted insurance of the articles with R2 as

compulsory under the scheme. The complainant expressed that he insured two

digital cameras with R2 and got a policy bearing No. 611204/46/05/00110,

4

dt. 5-1-2006 with insured amount of Rs. 90,000/- and one time premium of

Rs. 290/-. The Xerox copy of the insurance policy marked as Ex. A3. It was

mentioned as one digital camera and insured amount was Rs. 90,000/- and the

financier was R1. The R2 also filed a duplicate copy of the policy under Ex. B4. The

complainant argued that by mistake or oversight the discretion of the articles in the

policy was shown as one digital camera instead of two digital cameras. Whether it

was one digital camera or two digital cameras the insured amount was Rs. 90,000/-

and premium was Rs. 290/-. The complainant submitted a quotation for purchase of

the digital cameras and its accessories for Rs. 1,00,400/-. The Xerox copy of

quotation was Ex. A2 and the same was filed by R2 under Ex. B3. Before issuing

the policy the insurance company would certainly verify the bills of the articles

purchased by the complainant under self employment from out of loan sanctioned by

the R1 bank. Therefore, the bills were certainly with the R2 insurance company. But

they were not filed.

8. The complainant lost two digital cameras on 15-10-2006. He lost two

digital cameras in a bag kept at the passenger’s seat at Mydukur RTC Bus stand.

Immediately the complainant reported the matter to Mydukur police, who registered

a case as Cr. No. 192/2006 under section 379 of IPC dt. 15-10-2006. The Xerox

copy of FIR was Ex. A1. But Mydukur police issued a notice to the complainant that

it was un-dectable. The Xerox copy of notice was Ex. A4. The complainant informed

the theft of his digital cameras to R1, who informed the same on 16-10-2006 to R2.

The Xerox copy of letter was Ex. B1. The R1 filed a copy of the account extract of the

complainant regarding his outstanding balance due under Ex.B2.

9. While so the R1 bank issued a notice to the complainant on 25-10-2007

to pay the balance outstanding due to Rs. 36,000/- along with costs of Rs. 70/-. The

notice was Ex. A5. The complainant later addressed a letter to R2 to settle the claim.

5

The copy of the letter dt. 26-3-2008 was Ex. A6. Ex. A7 was courier receipt. At last

as the claim was not settled the complainant got issued a notice dt. 14-9-2008 to

both the respondents requesting the bank to claim the balance out standing due of

Rs. 36,000/- from R2 company. The office copy of the notice was Ex. A8. Ex. A9 was

postal acknowledgments.

10. Under the conditions of the policy Ex. B4 it was mentioned 1% of sum

insured for all claims and 25% of claim amount in case of theft property. In the

present case the claim amount was Rs. 90,000/- and the sum insured was

Rs. 90,000/- for one digital camera. Even if it was for two digital or one digital

camera the sum insured was Rs. 90,000/-. The insurance company R2 would abide

to the insured sum. It was mandatory. In the counter of R2 also it was disclosed

that the complainant was not entitled to the claim of 100% loss but might have

claimed 3/4 on Rs. 32,000/- as the cost of one digital camera. The complainant filed

Ex. A1 to prove theft of his two digital cameras on 15-10-2006. In view of the

conditions mentioned in the policy the complainant is entitled to Rs. 22,500/-

(Rs. 90,000/1/4). Hence, the points are answered accordingly.

11. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed. The R2 is directed

to pay Rs. 22,500/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand and Five Hundred only)

(Rs. 90,000 / 1/4) with costs of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only). The R2 is

directed to comply the order of the Hon’ble Forum within 30 days from the date of

receipt of this order. The rest of the claim and the case against R1 are dismissed

without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by us in the open forum, this the 26

MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant : NIL For Respondent : NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant : -

Ex. A1 X/c of FIR in Cr. No. 192/2006 of Mydukur Police station.

Ex. A2 X/c of quotation issued computer media station, Kadapa.

Ex. A3 X/c of policy issued by R2.

Ex. A4 X/c of notice issued by Inspector of Police, Mydukur.

Ex. A5 Notice issued by R1, dt. 25-10-2007.

Ex. A6 X/c of letter from complainant to R2, dt. 26-3-2008.

Ex. A7 Courier receipt, dt. 29-3-2008.

Ex. A8 Office copy of notice from complainant’s advocate to the respondents,

dt. 14-9-2008 along with speed post receipts.

Ex. A9 Two Acknowledgements.

Exhibits marked for Respondents: -

Ex. B1 X/c of letter from R1 to R2, dt. 16-10-2006.

Ex. B2 Copy of statement of account issued by R1, dt. 18-12-2008.

Ex. B3 X/c of quotation issued computer media station, Kadapa.

Ex. B4 Duplicate policy issued by R2 in favour of the complainant.

MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT

Copy to :-

1) Sri T. Eswar Reddy, Advocate,

2) Sri N. Konda Reddy, Advocate.

3) Sri G. Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate.

1) Copy was made ready on :

2) Copy was dispatched on :

3) Copy of delivered to parties :

B.V.