Date of Filing : 26.03.2011
Date of Order : 22.09.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 020
Dated 22nd SEPTEMBER 2011
PRESENT
Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A., LL.B. (SPL) …. President
Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A., LL.B. …. Member
Sri. BALAKRISHNA V. MASALI, B.A., LL.B.(SPL) …. Member
COMPLAINT NO. 613 / 2011
Sri. K. Lakshminarayana Raju,
S/o. Late Krishna Raju,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at: No. 52, 2nd Cross,
Nagappa Block, Srirampuram,
Bangalore – 560 021. ……. Complainant
V/s.
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Interface Building No. 11, 401/402,
4th Floor, Behind Goregao Sport Club,
Malad (W),
Mumbai – 400 064.
Rep. by its Manager. …… Opposite Party
ORDER
(By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale)
This Complaint is filed by the Complainant u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant has insured his 2 Wheeler vehicle Honda Activa with the OP and said vehicle was stolen on 05.06.2010 when it was parked near house of the Complainant. Complainant had approached Police to register his Complaint on 05.06.2010, but Police have advised him to wait for 15 days and finally on 20.06.2010 Police have registered case under Crime No. 161/2010. Complainant submitted claim form with OP and acknowledgement was given by the OP for having received the claim form on 01.09.2010. Further, on 22.09.2010 OP asked for FIR, Keys, Policy copy & final report from the Complainant. OP rejected the claim on the ground that Complaint was lodged to the Police after 15 days. Notice was issued to OP. There was deficiency of service on the part of OP. Therefore, Complainant prayed that OP be directed to replace the new vehicle as per the insurance policy and award damages.
2. OP has filed its versions admitting that vehicle was insured with them. Liability of the OP is limited as per the terms & conditions of the policy. The period of insurance was from 20.03.2010 to 19.03.2011. Complainant intimated the OP on 16.06.2010 stating that Motor Cycle was stolen on 05.06.2010. Police complaint was filed by the Complainant on 20.06.2010 even though theft had taken place on 05.06.2010. Therefore, under terms & conditions of the policy, the claim was not accepted and there was no deficiency of service on the part of OP. Therefore, OP requested to dismiss the Complaint.
3. Affidavit evidence and documents are produced. Arguments are heard.
4. Points for consideration are as under:
(1) Whether the Complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of OP?
(2) Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief ?
5. As regards taking of Policy from the OP, there is no dispute. Complainant has insured his vehicle Honda Activa with OP and the period of insurance was from 20.03.2010 to 19.03.2011. It is the case of the Complainant that the vehicle was stolen on 05.06.2010. As per the FIR copy produced by the Complainant, Complainant has given the Complaint to the jurisdiction Police on 20.06.2010. Complainant has also produced copy of complaint lodged to the Sriramapura Police. In this complaint also, date of complaint is mentioned as 20.06.2010. OP submitted that the Complainant has informed theft of the vehicle to the OP on 16.06.2010. It is the case of the Complainant that on the date of theft itself he had gone to Police, but Police did not registered the Complainant and instead asked the Complainant to wait for 15 days. Therefore, he ultimately lodged his written complaint on 20.06.2010 and the FIR was also registered. But, this story of the complainant cannot be accepted, because there is no evidence or any documentary proof to show that he had approached the Police on 05.06.2010 itself. The Complainant could have sent the Complaint through post or he could have sent the Complaint to the higher Authorities soon after the theft of the vehicle. The theory put-up by the Complainant that on 05.06.2010 he had approached Police and Police have asked him to wait for 15 days cannot be accepted. The records speak otherwise. As per record, written complaint was given on 20.06.2010 and on the same day Police registered the case and submitted FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate. Consequently, the Complainant has not produced any documents to show that he has immediately intimated the occurrence of the theft to the OP Company. On the other hand, OP has taken defence that Complainant informed the theft on 16.06.2010. Therefore, the defence taken by the OP shall have to be accepted. Complainant never said in the Complaint that he had informed the theft of the vehicle to the OP Company soon after the theft. Therefore, whatever the date mentioned by the OP in the defence version shall have to be accepted as true & correct. OP has relied upon unreported judgement of the Hon’ble National Commission in First Appeal No. 321/2005 pronounced on 09.12.2009 between New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v/s. Trilochan Jane. In that judgement Hon’ble National Commission had interpreted the word immediately and lodging FIR after 2 days of the theft and informing the Company after 9 days was held to be fatal and on that delay ground itself complaint came to be dismissed. OP has also filed judgement copy of the Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal No. 169/2011 between Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s. Babu Reddy. Hon’ble State Commission also dismissed the complaint on the ground of delay itself relying on the judgement of the Hon’ble National Commission in Appeal No. 321/2005. Therefore, in view of the above 2 judgements, there is no scope to allow the Complaint. The Complainant has failed to prove deficiency of service rendered by the OP while rejecting the claim. Therefore, Complainant is not entitled for any relief. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Complaint is dismissed.
Send copy of this Order to both the parties free of cost immediately.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 22nd day of September 2011.
Order accordingly
PRESIDENT
We concur the above findings
MEMBER MEMBER
SSS
