BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.121/2009 Order dated this the 25th day of February 2010 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.Harish M. S/o Madaiah.C, R/o Chatralingana Doddi Village, Athagooru Hobli, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District. (By Sri H.S.Nagendra., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S The Legal Manager, I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 228:15, 9th Main Road, 3rd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560011. (By Sri D.G.Niranjanamurthy., Advocate) Date of complaint 22.10.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 09.12.2009 Date of order 25.02.2010 Total Period 2 Months 16 Days Result The complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.500/- to the Opposite party. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party claiming insurance amount of the vehicle. 2. The case of the Complainant is that he is the owner of motor cycle bearing No.KA-11:R-1000 and the vehicle was insured with Opposite party for a period from 05.09.2008 to 04.09.2009 under the policy bearing No.3005:54884323:00:000. As usual, the Complainant had parked his motor cycle infront of his house along with the tractor and car on 29.09.2008. In the morning, he found that motor cycle was missing. Then, the Complainant searched for the vehicle from 30.09.2008 to 02.11.2008. Even, the friends and houseman of the Complainant searched for the same. Meanwhile, the Complainant fell-ill for some days, the motor cycle could not be traced out. Therefore, he lodged a complaint to Kestur Police Station on 02.11.2008. The police registered the complaint in crime No.72/2008 for the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. Then, the police conducted investigation, but could not trace the motor cycle and finally, submitted C-report to the Court on 17.04.2009. The Complainant was under the impression that police could trace the motor cycle, but it was not fruitful. Then, the Complainant in the last week of April informed the Opposite party about the theft of motor cycle and submitted records claiming insurance amount. But, the Opposite party has repudiated the claim on the ground there is delay in lodging the compliant to the police and also delay in information to the Opposite party Insurance Company. Therefore, Opposite party has committed deficiency in service by giving untenable grounds and delay in filing the complaint and information to give the Opposite party is due to searching of the vehicle. On these grounds, the compliant is filed. 3. The Opposite party has filed version contending that the complaint is filed in collusion with the police officials have creating the documents with intension to make wrongful gain if possible. As per policy condition, in case of theft of the vehicle, insured should give immediate notice to the police. But, the alleged theft was reported to be taken place on 29.09.2008. But, the complaint was given to the police on 02.11.2008. Hence, there is inordinate delay in giving complaint to the police, which amounts to violation of the policy condition. Further, as per the policy condition, in case of theft of the vehicle, the notice shall be given in writing to the Opposite party immediately after the occurrence of the theft. Thereafter, the insured shall give all necessary information and assistance to the Insurance Company. But, the insured did not give notice immediately after the theft of the vehicle, but gave notice on 12.02.2009 i.e., after 4 months. Hence, there is inordinate delay in giving notice to the Insurance Company, which amounts to violation of policy condition. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable and complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. During trial, the Complainant has filed affidavit and produced the documents Ex.C.1 to C.5. The Opposite party has filed affidavit and produced the document Ex.R.1. 5. We have heard both the sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of insurance? 2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the insurance amount of Rs.49,500/-? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. POINT NO.1:- The undisputed facts borne out from the materials on record are that the Complainant is registered owner of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-11:R-1000 as per Ex.R.1 and the said vehicle was insured with Opposite party and the Opposite party has issued insurance policy as per Ex.C.5 for the period from 05.09.2008 to 04.09.2009 and the vehicle was insured for Rs.31,500/-. 9. It is admitted fact that the Complainant preferred the claim of insurance on the ground of theft of the motor cycle furnishing the documents and Opposite party has repudiated the claim by sending letter Ex.C.4 on the ground that the Complainant has violated the conditions of the policy in not lodging the complaint to the police immediately and not informing the Insurance Company immediately. 10. Now, the grievance of the Complainant is that the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not settling the claim on untenable grounds. According to the Opposite party, the Complainant has concocted the documents with the police in order to claim the insurance amount creating the document of theft. 11. Admittedly, as per the complaint, on the night of 29.09.2008 the motor cycle parked infront of his house was stolen and it was noticed morning and admittedly, he lodged the complaint to the police on 02.11.2008 to Kesthur Police Station as per Ex.C.2 and thereafter, the police have filed C-report on 17.04.2009 stating that the case cannot be detected. Admittedly, the Complainant in the last week of April 2009 reported to the Opposite party about the theft of the motor cycle and to claim the insurance, he submitted the documents. So, it is admitted fact that after lapse of nearly 6 months as per the complaint, he informed the Opposite party Office about the theft and submitted the documents. 12. Now, the Opposite party has contended that there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint to the police and also intimation to the insurance company and there is violation of the policy conditions and the Complainant is not entitled to the insurance claim and the claim of the Complainant cannot be believed. The learned counsel for the Opposite party has relied upon the decision reported in III(2006) CPJ page 240 by the Honble National Commission in the case of New India Assurance Co., Ltd., -Vs- Dharam Singh. 13. In that case, the Honble National Commission has held that the delay in lodging FIR and sending the claim intimation to insurer is a clear violation of policy condition requiring claim intimation to be sent immediately after accident/loss or damage to the insured property, repudiation of the claim is proper and there is no deficiency in service. The said decision is squarely applicable to the facts of this present case. Because the Complainant is a Contractor having car, tractor apart from the motor cycle. It is admitted about the delay of more than 30 days in lodging the complaint to the police and also nearly 6 months in reporting to the Insurance Company. The Complainant has alleged that the delay is for the reason that they were searching for the vehicle in surrounding villages and further, he fell-ill for certain days from 30.09.2008 to 02.11.2008. But, admittedly the Complainant has not produced any documents that he fell-ill and taking treatment. Further, no affidavit of any neighbourer is filed to establish that the motor cycle was stolen and police had come for investigation and the Complainant fell-ill and his housemen were searching for the vehicle which was allegedly stolen. Therefore, the reasons cannot be accepted at all. The Opposite party has produced the policy conditions with respect of two wheeler package policy upon which the policy Ex.C.5 (Ex.R.1) was issued to the Complainant. The policy conditions cannot be disputed and condition at page 2 of two wheeler package policy clearly established that notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damage and insured shall given immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the Company. So, the word immediately means immediate action about the theft of insured vehicle. The contention of the counsel for the Complainant that there is no time limit mentioned in the condition, fixing the particular time cannot be accepted, because the word immediately connotes immediate action in lodging the complaint to the police about the theft within reasonable time and also to intimate the insurance company immediately. But, in the present case, the Complainant has committed inordinate delay of more than one month in lodging the complaint to the police and nearly 4 months delay in intimating the insurance company and therefore, the Opposite party has proved that the Complainant has contravened the conditions of the two wheeler package policy and has rightly repudiated the claim and therefore, we hold that the Opposite party is justified in repudiating the claim of the Complainant. Thus, the Complainant has failed to prove that the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. 14. The Complainant has sought for value of the motor cycle at Rs.49,500/-, but the vehicle is insured for Rs.31,500/-. So, it cannot be assessed on what basis the Complainant has claimed this amount of Rs.49,500/- without producing the purchase receipt of the motor cycle. Therefore, it is clearly established that the Complainant has filed a whimsical complaint claiming more amount than the insured value amount and therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to the claim made in this complaint. 15. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.500/- to the Opposite party. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 25th day of February 2010). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
