BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :HYDERABAD (CIRCUIT BENCH AT VIJAYAWADA)
F.A.No.1433/2007 against C.C.No.102/2007, Dist. Forum,Prakasam Dist at Ongole.
Between:
The Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Upstairs SBH, Santhapet,
Ongole. …. Appellant/
Opp.party
And
Immadisetty Hanumantha Rao,
S/o.Subbaiah, aged 30 years,
Hindu, Private Teacher,
Santhapet, Ongole. … Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. G.Dinesh Kumar
Counsel for the Respondent : M/s.Venkatrajaram
CORAM:SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER
And
SRI. K.SATYANAND , HON’BLE MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL.
TWO THOUSAND TEN.
Oral Order :(Per Smt. M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
****
Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.102/2007 on the file of District Forum Prakasam at Ongole, the opposite party preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of motor cycle bearing no.A.P.27/F 2871 which he purchased for an amount of Rs.52,000/- inclusive of life tax and insurance vide registration certificate dt.10.5.2001 and he insured the same with the opposite party on 29.6.2004 for a policy covering all risks inclusive of theft and he paid premium of Rs.770/- towards the said policy. The policy covers the period from 29.6.2004 to 28.6.2005 . On 11.5.2005 at 7 a.m. the complainant parked his motor cycle in the parking place and after he returned from the vegetable market, he noticed that his mother cycle was missing. He searched all the surrounding places but did not detect the vehicle. He reported to the Ongole Town Police Station and also approached Superintendent of Police, Prakasam Dist. on 9.1.2006 and sought direction from him to the Sub Inspector of Police to investigate his case. The vehicle was not detected and the insurance company also did not choose to settle his claim of Rs.30,000/-. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the insurance company to pay the claim amount of Rs.30,000/- with interest, compensation and costs.
The opposite party filed written versions stating that the theft of movable property is a cognizable offence and a report has to be given to the police and the same has to be registered in the concerned police station, but in this case no case was registered till now and a report was given to the police on 9.1.2006 and there is no proof that the vehicle was stolen on 11.5.2005 and in the absence of any documentary proof it cannot be assumed that the vehicle was really stolen and hence the repudiation is justified.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A5 and B1 to B3 allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- with subsequent interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of Ex.A4 i.e. 9.1.2006 till the date of realization and also directed to pay Rs.1000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards costs .
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal.
The facts not in dispute are that the complainant purchased the vehicle with the registration certificate dt.10.5.2001 for an amount of Rs.52,000/- and got the same insured with the opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.770/- towards premium , the coverage being from 29.6.2004 to 28.6.2005. On 11.5.2005 at 7 a.m. the complainant submits that he went to vegetable market and parked his motorcycle in the parking place and locked it and when he returned half an hour later he noticed that the motorcycle was missing and inspite of searching several times he could not trace it. He gave a complaint to the police on 11.5.2005 vide Ex.A3 which is addressed to the Sub Inspector of Police regarding the theft of the motor cycle, a copy of it was also marked to the insurance company. Vide Ex.A4 the complainant once again complained to the Police that his vehicle was not traced and sought intervention of the Superintendent of Police to give direction to the Sub Inspector of Police to investigate into the matter. It is the case of the appellant/opposite party that the complainant though gave an intimation to the police about the theft a case was not registered and the theft of movable property is a cognizable offence and a report has to be registered and also that there is no proof that the vehicle was stolen on 11.5.2005 and in the absence of the complainant having taken immediate steps to register the complaint, their repudiation is justified. Ex.A1 is the certificate of registration and Ex.A2 is the insurance policy for the vehicle .Ex.A3 is the copy of the complaint made by the complainant to the police, copy of it is also marked to the insurance company. Ex.A4 dt.9.1.2006 addressed by the complainant to the Superintendent of Police in which the complainant brought to the notice of the Superintendent of Police seeking intervention to investigate into the matter and trace his motorcycle. This is also endorsed by the police. Taking into consideration this endorsement and Exs.A3 and A4 we are of the considered view that the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim on the ground that the complaint was not registered. When the policy is not in dispute, coverage is not in dispute, the repudiation by the opposite party that a complaint was not formally registered when the complainant has taken steps to inform the S.P. of Police to initiate action, this non registration of FIR cannot be a sole ground for repudiation. Ex.A5 which is the bill dated 7.10.2000 shows that the complainant purchased motor cycle for an amount of Rs.44,303/- and the theft was committed on 29.6.2004. So the depreciation is rightly deducted. We see no grounds to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum.
In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed . Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd./-MEMBER
Sd./MEMBER
Dt.6.4.2010
