27.06.2022

ORDER

By Sri Ravishankar, Judicial Member

Heard the arguments of advocate for appellant.

2.      The learned counsel for appellant submits that the vehicle of the respondent/complainant insured with the appellant insurance company.  During the policy is in force, the vehicle was stolen on 29.12.2017 and on 07.02.2008 the complainant gave a police complaint belatedly and subsequently ‘C’ report was filed.  Thereafter, the complainant informed to the appellant insurance company after a lapse of six months with respect to the theft of the vehicle and claimed for compensation by virtue of the policy.  This appellant repudiated the claim for belated information.  Against which, the complainant/respondent  preferred a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service.  The District Commission allowed the complaint without considering the delay in giving information, hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.

3.      On going through the memorandum of appeal and certified copy of the order, it is an admitted fact that as on the date of theft, the policy was valid.  We noticed here that the theft took place on 29.12.2007 whereas the complainant was given a police complaint on 07.02.2008 almost 40 days delay in giving the police complaint itself.  It is also noted that the complainant has not informed the appellate authority within 48 hours of the theft of the vehicle.  It is mandate on the part of the complainant to give information within a stipulate time as noted in the terms and conditions of the policy, but, the complainant has not explained any reason why he has given belated information.  Due to delay in information given to both insurance company and police station, they have deprived off the investigation with respect to the theft of the vehicle.  It is a clear negligence on the part of the complainant in follow-up the theft of the vehicle.  The District Commission has made an error in allowing the complaint because the terms and conditions of the policy are binding on both parties.  The complainant ought to give information within 48 hours, as such, the appeal lacks legality, accordingly it requires to be set aside.  Hence, the following,

ORDER

Appeal is allowed.  Consequently, the Order dt.25.01.2011 passed in CC.No.216/2010 is hereby dismissed.

The amount in deposit shall be refunded to the appellant.

                      Sd/-                                                    Sd/-

       (Sunita .C. Bagewadi)                             (Ravishankar)       

                           Member                                        Judicial Member