This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 15-12-11 in the presence of Sri G. Punna Reddy, advocate for complainant and of              Sri G. Srinivasu, advocate for opposite party, 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 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking Rs.30,500/- being cost of the insured vehicle, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and physical strain, Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.5,000/- towards expenses and costs on the complaint.

2.  In brief the contention of the complaint is thus:

        Being owner of the motor bike bearing No. AP 07 P 4277 the complainant insured it with the opposite party vide policy No.OG-10-1802-180200016673 covering the risk from 15-10-09 to 14-10-10.    The complainant kept the said vehicle at Central Plaza complex in Naaz Centre, Guntur and went inside Balaji Internet for checking e-mails.   Half an hour later the complainant came from the said internet and found his vehicle missing and enquired surrounding persons.   The complainant informed about theft of his vehicle at Kothapet police station and the police officials made GD entry in respect of it and informed the complainant to come later.   The complainant on             05-02-10 through telephone informed the opposite party and they gave the claim No.38830788.  Subsequently the complainant went Vijayawada for submitting claim forms to the opposite party.   The opposite party did not receive the claim form.      The officials of the opposite party informed the complainant that they cannot conduct enquiry about the claim submitted by the complainant until FIR was issued.   After that the complainant approached Kothapet PS for registering FIR.   The SHO, Kothapet registered the report of the complainant as Cr.No.181 of 2009 u/s 379 IPC.   Even after registering a case by the concerned police the opposite party did not send its officials for enquiry.   On 25-10-10 and 08-02-10 the opposite party informed the complainant that the claim was rejected on the ground of delay in registering FIR.   The opposite party did not follow the procedure as per law and failed to provide service as mentioned in the policy certificate.   Cost of the vehicle was Rs.30,500/-.   The complainant suffered mental agony on account of the attitude of the opposite party.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.    The contention of the opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:

        The opposite party received the theft information from the complainant on 18-10-10 stating that the vehicle was stolen on                 04-02-10 when parked near Naaz Centre, Guntur.    The complainant lodged a report with the police after nine months.   The insurance policy between the complainant and the opposite party is a contractual one.   The complainant had committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy and therefore is not liable to indemnify the complainant.   The opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.   The complainant filed the complaint to have unjust enrichment.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4. Exs.A-1 to A-8 and Ex.B-1 were marked on behalf of the complainant and opposite party respectively.

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

1. Whether the opposite party 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 party to his vehicle bearing No.AP07P 4277 and the policy in force by 04-02-10 are not in dispute.  Under Ex.A-3 the opposite party on 08-12-10 repudiated the claim on the ground of delay in giving report to police and intimation to the opposite party. 

7.   Ex.A-4 is copy of FIR along with report given to the police.   Nowhere in Ex.A-4 the complainant mentioned about he giving report/intimation to the police on 04-02-10.   The opposite party is denying about the complainant giving intimation on 05-02-10 to it regarding theft of his vehicle.    The burden therefore lies on the complainant to substantiate his contention.   Ex.A-4 falsified the contention of the complainant about he giving report to police regarding theft of his vehicle. 

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.   In this case the complainant filed IA 467 of 2011 seeking summons to the SHO, Kothapet PS for production of the general dairy with regard to the dates 04-02-10 and 05-02-10 and the same was allowed.    The witness failed to produce documents before this Forum inspite of receipt of summons.   The complainant failed to take subsequent steps for production of those documents ordered by this Forum. 

11.   Ex.A-4 as already observed revealed that the complainant gave report to the police on 13-10-10 after a delay of about nine months.   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 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. ……………………………”.

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 party 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