BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT  HYDERABAD.

FA  303 of 2013 against  CC 183 of 2012 , Dist. Forum, Vijayawada

Between:

R. Kutumba Rao

S/o. Yesupadam

Employee, D.No. 47-5-54

Opp: St. Josephs School

Gunadala,

Vijayawada-520 004.                                  ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                Complainant.

                                                                   Vs.

Bajaj Allianz  General Insurance  Company Ltd.,

Rep. by its  Manager

D.No. 40-1-9, M.G. Road

Labbipet, Vijayawada-520 010.                   ***                       Respondent/

Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:                           M/s. V. Gourishankara Rao

Counsel for the Respondent:                       M/s.  N. Mohana Krishna.

CORAM:     

            HON’BLE SRI  JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT

       SRI S. BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                                                                   &

                             SRI  R. L. NARASIMHA RAO,  HON’BLE MEMBER

Oral Order :  08/08/2014 

(Per Hon’ble Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada, President)

                                                                   ***

1)                Unsuccessful complainant is the appellant, and this appeal is filed assailing the order dt.  12.2.2013 made in CC No.  183/2012 on the file of Dist. Forum-II, Vijayawada, Krishna District,  whereby the complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed. 

2)                The brief facts are that the complainant is the owner of a motor cycle i.e., Hero Honda Passion Plus bearing No.  AP 16 AN 4972 and the said vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party  insurance company  vide policy bearing No.  0G-11-1802-1802-00015311.   The said vehicle was lost on 11.7.2011 and the said fact was brought to the notice of   police on 14.8.2011 who in turn registered a case in  Crime No.  473/2011 u/s 379 IPC.   Subsequently, the said fact with regard to theft of the vehicle was brought to the notice of   Opposite Party insurance company on 24.8.2011 along with copy of FIR and also certificate of the police  to the effect  that the vehicle could not be traced.    As there is abnormal delay of about 45 days and the same is contrary to condition No. 1 of the policy, the Opposite Party i.e., the insurance company repudiated the claim. In those circumstances, the appellant/complainant approached the Dist. Forum and filed the said complaint.

3)                The Opposite Party resisted the complaint stating that condition No. 1 of the  policy clearly  mandates that  any theft with regard to the vehicle etc.,  shall be reported to the  insurance company forthwith but in the instant case,  though the  vehicle was lost on 11.7.2011  the report was given on  14.8.2011, and in those circumstances,  the insurance company repudiated the claim. 

4)                Having considered the entire material on record, the Dist. Forum while rejecting the claim of the complainant dismissed the complaint.    Hence this appeal.

5)                There is no dispute with regard to the facts as narrated above.   The only point that falls for our consideration is whether the said delay can be condoned, and it can be said that said repudiation on the part of Opposite Party is unwarranted?

6)                The National Commission as well as  Supreme Court  in a number of decisions  have taken the view that the information with regard to  the theft shall be intimated to the insurance company  at the earliest point of time, and the said view was reiterated by the National Commission  in a very recent judgement in  Budha Ganesh Vs.  New India  Insurance Company Ltd., Satna in R.P. No. 3936/2012  decided on  21.1.2014.    In those circumstances, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the information which was given to the insurance company   on 24.8.2011 is definitely with abnormal delay.   The Opposite Party insurance company is justified in repudiating the claim which action cannot be interfered with. 

7)                In the result this appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the Dist. Forum.   No costs. 

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT        

2)           ________________________________

MEMBER  

3)           ________________________________

MEMBER  

*pnr

UP LOAD – O.K.