O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> <br /> The brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the Ops are that he had purchased a Toyota Innova Car by taking loan from a bank, repayable in installments that he himself was driving the car. That on 14/08/2008 one Vijay Kumar, a Manager of Sagar Comforts Hotel, Mathikere, Bangalore introduced one Jaisingh to him who had stayed in that hotel to provide his car service to Jaisingh to go to Kanchipuram, Mahabalipuram, Pondicherry, Chidambaram etc., Accordingly, he took that Jaisingh on 15/08/2008 from Bangalore and reached Chidambaram and stayed in a hotel called R.K Tower. On 16/08/2008 he fell ill due to fever and that Jaisingh in order to cause loss dishonestly took his vehicle away and vanished. That he made all search for that Jaisingh and for the vehicle but he could not trace them. Then he approached local police. Because of local public disturbance and due to language problem police did not immediately act upon his complaint and that the police also refused to take complaint in Kannada or in English. However police then registered a complaint U/s 420 of IPC only on 21/08/2009. That he also intimated the incident to the first Op during 4th week of September 2008. An executive of Op approached him and directed him to submit a letter in English with details of his claim on 25/09/2008. Then he gave a detail narration but the Op on 27/09/2008 rejected his claim for compensation and therefore attributing deficiency to the Ops stated to had got issued a legal notice claiming reimbursement but not successful has prayed for a direction to Ops to pay him Rs.8,88,019.88 and also to award compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs and to award interest and costs.<br /> <br /> Ops have appeared through their advocate and filed common version in which they have admitted to had issued a policy on the vehicle in question which was in force from 24/12/2007 to 23/12/2008 and stated that their liability is limited as per the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further stated that the complainant informed them on 25/09/2008 stating that his car was stolen on 16/08/2008, then they appointed an investigator who has prepared investigation report. Then they told the complainant to submit a claim with relevant documents including two ignition keys but inspite of repeated request the complainant did not produce them and stated that there is a serious doubt regarding theft of the vehicle. That as per the complaint lodged by the complainant himself had handed over the key to 3rd party who was not known to him and without his consent it was very difficult to move the vehicle out. The complainant has not produced any documents regarding refusal of police to receive the complaint. The complainant has also not informed them immediately after the theft as required under the terms and conditions of the policy who has caused delay in doing so and thus doubting the genuineness of the claim of the complainant have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and one Chethan for Ops have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. Complainant along with the complaint has produced a copy of the insurance police, a copy of letter he had addressed to Ops for reimbursement of his claim dated 25/09/2008, copy of repudiation letter issued by the Op with copies of some police investigation papers including a copy of FIR besides a copy of the legal notice. Ops have not produced any documents. We have heard the counsel for both parties and perused the records. <br /> <br /> On the above materials, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the Op has caused deficiency in his service in repudiating his claim for reimbursement of the cost of the car which was stolen?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> Point No.1 : In the negative<br /> Point No.2 : To see the final order.<br /> <br /> Answer on point No.1: As could be seen from the rival contention of the parties, there is no dispute that the car belonging to the complainant was insured with the Ops and the policy was effect from 24/12/2007 to 23/12/2008. Complainant has complained that he had taken a passenger by name Jaisingh on 15/08/2008 from Bangalore towards Tamilnadu and he stayed in a hotel called R.K. Tower but on 16/08/2008 when he fell ill that Jaisingh had vanished along with the vehicle. Ops have disputed the story of theft of the vehicle as revealed by the complainant and have suspected it, besides calling that alleged theft as doubtful. The Opponents in support of their doubt regarding theft of the vehicle and repudiation of the claim of the complainant have stated that, though the vehicle was stolen on 16/08/2008 the complainant stated to had given complaint to the Police only on 21/08/2008 belatedly and that the complainant did not inform them immediately regarding theft of the vehicle as required under the terms and conditions of the policy but only reported to them on 25/09/2008 through a claim as such have contended that the claim of the complainant is not a bona-fide.<br /> <br /> On going through the contentions of the complainant, we are compelled to hold that the complainant has not acted with reasonable care as expected of an owner of the car and as an insured. Coming to his allegations of theft of the vehicle concerned, he simply stated that they reached Chidambaram, stayed in a hotel, on 16/08/2008 the passenger vanished with his vehicle. Here, the complainant apparently has not come up with the clear picture as how the theft has taken place and appears to have suppressed the real facts. The complainant has not stated where he had parked the car? Where he was staying? where that passenger was staying? What happened to ignition keys? How that passenger was managed to take the car? Is by using original ignition key or duplicate key? If ignition keys were with them why did he not produce them to the insurance company? If ignition keys were used by the offender, how the keys went to his hands, is it the case of the complainant that passenger stealthily took the keys from him and took the vehicle are all the questions arise and are not answered by the complainant. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant had not taken minimum reasonable care for safety of the insured vehicle. Besides this it could be seen that the complainant though stated that he fell ill due to fever has not further given details like any treatment he took and how his fever prevented him from taking care of the vehicle. Admittedly, the complainant gave complaint to the police on 21/08/2009 reasons given by him for this delayed police complaint is not acceptable. Copies of police documents clearly show receipt of the complaint was only on 21/08/2008. Why the complainant did not take steps to file a complaint within the reasonable time is not convincingly explained. Assuming that local police refused to receive the complaint he could have stated so in the complaint given on 21/08/2009. Added to this, it is also admitted by the complainant that he did not immediately inform the Ops the insurance company about the theft of the vehicle but only on 25/09/2008 make a claim for reimbursement of the insurance amount. Why did he not inform the insurance company about the theft is left unanswered which has caused an-adherence to the Op, as they could have taken up the matter for investigation. All these vital aspects are not answered and are remained unattended. The counsel for the complainant argued that the delay in giving complaint to Police and Insurance Company, Ops cannot refuse the claim. The Counsel for the complainant in support of his claim has relied upon a decision of the National Commission referred on 28/02/2002 between Venkateswara Borewells V/s The Oriental Insurance Company and another decision of High Court of Punjab and Haryana delivered in Civil Writ Petition No.16869 of 2009. The facts of these two decisions are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Because in the earlier case the driver had taken necessary care to entrust his vehicle to the cleaner and went for treatment to the hospital. Therefore that care was considered and insurance company was held as liable to reimburse. In the second case the complainant though had delayed in filing police complaint and intimating the insurance company found to had explained the delay satisfactorily. Therefore, that settlement arrived before permanent Lok Adalath was upheld. But in the case on hand, the complainant’s explanation and conduct found to be not acceptable and is found suspicious as such the above decisions are held as in-applicable to the facts of the case. The parties though have not produced the relevant terms and conditions of the policy but it can not be denied the legal obligation of the insured to inform the insurance company about the loss he suffered within the reasonable time. Complainant by these omissions and inactions deprived the ops to take needed action at their end to trace the vehicle before it had gone out of their reach. These facts and latches of the complainant found to have contributed for doubting the claim of complainant by Ops. However, police investigation paper discloses that the complainant had given the ignition keys of the vehicle to the passenger who was admittedly a stranger. That has proved the failure of the complainant in taking reasonable care of the insured vehicle as such the complainant can not attribute deficiency to the OP and therefore, the complaint in our view lacks bonafides and is liable to be dismissed. As the result, we answer point no.1 in the negative and pass the following order.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 7th May 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />