Karnataka

StateCommission

A/589/2014

T.R. Panchksharappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

E.S. Indiresh

20 Jul 2022

ORDER

20/07/2022

O R D E R

 

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Heard advocate for respondent.  None represents appellant. 

2. Learned advocate for respondent submits that policy issued to the vehicle of complainant bearing No.KA-11-T-9212 and KA-11-TP-9213 vide policy No. 70964383 which is valid from 03.11.2009 to 02.11.2010.  Such being the case the complainant gave a complaint with respect of theft of the vehicle and claimed compensation under the ground of theft, but, the OP repudiated the claim stating that there is no theft took place and dishonoured the claim stating that vehicle was forcibly taken over from the complainant.  In this regard ‘C’ report is field against which the complainant approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP in not settling the claim. 
3. After trial District Commission also dismissed the complaint holding that forcible seizure of vehicle from the complainant not amounts to theft and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP in repudiating the claim as the said forcible taking possession not amounts to theft and dismissed the complaint. 
4. Appellant not present since long time.  We consider police has registered complaint under Section 419, R/w Section 379 of IPC, but, the pleadings of the complainant clearly discloses that some of the strange people have forcibly taken vehicle on 16.07.2010 at about 6.30 p.m. while he was going to K.R.Nagar town near Bilikere Village, whereas the OP / respondent submits that it was the financier who have seized the vehicle for non-payment of loan under due process of law, but, complainant in order to gain wrongfully registered false theft complaint before police and claimed for compensation which they have repudiated.  We are of the opinion that such incident is not considered as theft and OP rightly rejected the claim.  We found no irregularity in the order passed by the District Commission.  Hence, no interference is required.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

 

Member                                   Judicial Member