Complaint filed on: 20-03-2010<br /> Disposed on: 31-07-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT <br /> CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 <br /> <br /> C.C.No.615/2010<br /> DATED THIS THE 31st JULY 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER<br /> <br /> SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Complainant: - <br /> <br /> K.S.Mohan<br /> No.48, “Varsha Nilaya”,<br /> 4th main road, <br /> Dattatreya Nagar,<br /> B S K, 3rd stage,<br /> Bangalore-85<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s<br /> <br /> Opposite party: - <br /> <br /> The Manager,<br /> National Insurance Co. Ltd,<br /> No.144, Mahathmagandhi Road, <br /> Bangalore-01 <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> The grievance of the complainant against the opposite party [hereinafter called as OP for short) in brief is, that he was the owner of Hero Honda cycle motor had insured that bike with the OP. That on 15-8-2009 at about 10 PM he had parked his motor bike in front of his house after locking it, on the next day at 5.30 AM, when he woke up and saw his motor bike was missing. Immediately he gave a police complaint to Girinagar police station. But they were not able to trace that bike. Then he with all necessary documents submitted the claim to OP, but the OP after making him to wander to his office many times has refused to pay insurance amount and stated that he is entitled for insurance amount of Rs.25,000/- with other expenditure, has prayed for payment of Rs.45,000/-. <br /> <br /> 2. OP has appeared through his advocate and filed version admitting that, the bike of the complainant was insured with them having valid insurance policy from 5-12-08 to 4-12-09. It is further contended that the complainant after theft of his bike on 15-8-2009 has given a police complaint on 23-9-2009 after lapse of 38 days and informed them by making a claim for insurance money on 29-9-2009 after lapse of long time and therefore contended that the complainant has violated the conditions of the policy that is condition no.1 and the claim is made after lapse of 44 days in violation of condition and therefore, denying his liability has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant alongwith the complaint has produced a copy of complaint he had given to police, copy of FIR and another police investigation paper. The OP has produced a copy of the policy, terms and conditions of the policy. We have heard the complaint, who is in person and heard counsel for the OP and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that OP has caused deficiency in his service by not reimbursing the cost of the bike under the policy?<br /> 2. To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:<br /> 1. Answer Point No.1: In the negative <br /> 2. Answer Point No.2: To see the final order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 6. Answer on Point No.1: As we find no dispute with regard to the ownership of bike that was insured with the OP had a valid insurance policy as on the date of alleged theft, we shall have to concentrate on the fact of denial by the OP to reimburse the loss of the bike under the policy. <br /> <br /> 7. The complainant though in the complaint and affidavit evidence has stated that as if he had immediately given the complaint to the police after the theft and made claim with the OP with documents, but the documents produced by himself go contrary to his claim and prove that the complaint gave very belated complaint to the police after theft and OP was informed after more than 44 days of theft about theft of the bike by making a claim. The copy of the complaint given by this complainant to Girinagar police discloses that the complainant reported theft of the bike that took place on 15-8-2009 to the police on 23-9-2009. The complainant has not assigned any reason for this delay. The OP in his version and affidavit evidence has stated that the complainant made a claim with them for payment of insurance amount on 29-9-2009 after lapse of 44 days delay and it is only then they were informed about the theft. The complainant has not given any reason in not informing the insurance company immediately after the theft. Condition no.1 of the conditions of the policy contemplate that a notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and seek the assistance of the company. The complainant has therefore has violated condition no.1 of conditions of the policy. With this in ordinate delay in giving police complaint and informing the OP, the complainant has denied an opportunity to the OP to initiate its own action for tracing the vehicle. The learned counsel appearing for the OP placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission rendered in first appeal no.321 0f 2005 dated 9-12-2009 submitted that the complaint is to be dismissed as not maintainable. In the said decision the Hon’ble National Commission by referring to two decisions of the Supreme court reported in JT 2004 (8) SC page 8 and (2008) 11SCC page 256 has held that delay in reporting the theft of property to the concerned policy and to the insurance company is a fatal and that the complainant is not entitled for the relief. In the case on hand, we find that there is unexplained and in ordinate delay in reporting the theft to the police and to OP and the complainant is therefore not entitled for the relief. As a result, we answer point no.1 in the negative and pass the following order: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> Complaint is dismissed.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st July 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br />