ORDER

(Passed on 30/11/2018)

PER SHRI.ATUL D.ALSI, PRESIDENT.

             The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer

Protection Act,1986 against repudiation of his insurance claim of theft of vehicle and thereby claiming cost of vehicle amounting to Rs.47,689/- alongwith 18% interest p.a. and compensation of Rs.50,000/- and further Rs.10,000/- towards cost of proceeding.

2.     The brief facts leading to this petition are that the complainant is the owner of a vehicle bearing No.MH 34, BA 2575.  This vehicle was insured with the OP for the period 1/10/2016 to 30/9/2017.

3.       On 7/7/2017 at 9.15 a.m. incidence of theft occurred when the vehicle was parked by husband of the complainant near roadside and he had gone for urinating by road side. When husband of the complainant returned, he found the vehicle missing and hence he searched for the vehicle but could not find it. Hence an FIR came to be registered at Chandrapur Police Station, Bhadravati, vide Crime No.665/16 on 1/12/2016 U/s 279 of IPC .

4.         The complainant lodged insurance claim with the OP.  But the OP repudiated the claim on the ground of delayed intimation by 51 days and late FIR  by 8 days.  The complainant submitted that due to hospitalization and death of her husband, there was delay in intimating the theft incidence and the delay was bonafide.  Therefore, rejection of claim without considering genuine reason amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint.

5.       The complaint is admitted and notice was served on the OP. The OP filed its reply and thereby denied allegations against it and submitted that as per the documents submitted by the complainant, the incidence of theft was occurred on 7/7/2016 and the husband of complainant was admitted in hospital for the period 1/12/2016 to 26/12/2016 but the intimation of the incidence was given to the OP on 19/1/2017 and the offence of theft has been registered on 7/12/2016. The delayed intimation and lodging of FIR amounts to breach of terms of policy and therefore the repudiation of claim does not amount to deficiency in service. Furthermore, there is  negligence on the part of husband of the complainant as he left the vehicle un attended with key. Therefore the petition has no merit and it is liable to be dismissed with cost.

6.       Counsel for the complainant argued that copy of FIR is filed at page 1, copy of insurance policy at page 2, invoice bill at page 3, insurance claim repudiation letter at page 4, reply notice at page 5. The hospitalization of husband of the complainant and his followup treatment are the bonafide reasons for the delay in intimation and filing of FIR. The Surveyor appointed by the OP has investigated the incidence. However the claim has been repudiated on technical ground of delayed intimation.

 7.       The counsel for the OP argued that delayed intimation and registration of FIR amounts to breach of policy terms and conditions. The vehicle was left un attended in unlocked condition at the relevant time of theft.  Therefore rejection of claim does not amount to deficiency in service. 

8.         We have gone through the complaint, written versions filed by OP, affidavit, documents and WNA filed by the parties. We have also heard the oral arguments advanced by parties.

                    Points                                                                                     Finding

1.  Whether  there is deficiency in service on the

     part of OP ?                                                                                            Yes

2.  What order ?                                                                  As per final order..

As to issue No.1 & 2

9.        The basic dispute between the parties is about the reason assigned for repudiation of the claim that the FIR was registered after a delay of 8 days and there was delay of 51 days in giving intimation of the incidence to the OP. The incidence of theft is admitted by the OP. As per the medical reports and discharge papers filed by the complainant on record at Exhibit 13, it shows that the husband of complainant was suffering from head injury occurred in an accident and was admitted from 1/12/2018 to 6/12/2018 and thereafter he was under follow up treatment as per record of OPD filed at page 17 to 21 by the complainant on 25/9/2018. Therefore, the reason of ill health of husband of the complainant is a bonafide reason for the delay in lodging FIR and giving intimation. On the other hand, as soon as the intimation was given to the OP, a surveyor was appointed who has investigated the matter and has submitted his report. For the delay in registration of FIR, it is usual practice of the police that they initially avoid to register the offence of theft of the vehicle immediately after report and advise to search the vehicle on their own so as to avoid multiplicity of papers and procedure. Therefore, the delay in registration of FIR of 8 days can not be said to be a delay.  Similarly, there is no gross negligence on the part of husband of the complainant when he parked his vehicle by roadside unlocked while going for urinating. When the case is otherwise good on merit, it can not be repudiated on technical grounds of delayed intimation or registration of FIR. Therefore, in our opinion, the claim needs to be allowed on the non standard basis without any compensation and cost. Hence we pass the following order.     

Final order

1. The Complaint is partly allowed.

2.  The OP is directed to pay to the complaint Rs.35,766/- i.e. 75% of the ID  

     value of the vehicle.

3.  No order as to cost or compensation.

4. Copy of the order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.

(Smt.Kalpana Jangade (Kute)  (Smt.Kirti Vaidya (Gadgil)     (Shri.Atul D.Alsi)

               Member                                 Member                                    President