THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JULY 2021
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
APPEAL NOS. 1702/2014
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
(A Government of India Undertaking)
Having its branch office at
Beauty Plaza, Balmatta Road,
Mangalore.
And having its Regional Office at:
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Regional Office, 44/45, Residency Road,
Leo Shopping Complex, Bangalore-560 025
Represented by its authorized Signatory
Smt/Sri. R.S.Arasu.
(By Shri/Smt. Adarsh Gangal, Adv.,)
-Versus-
Mr. Devoji Rao, S/o Sesoji Rao
A/a 53 years, R/at H.No.3-89/ID,
Mookambika Nilaya,
Jalligudde, Bajal Post,
Mangalore Taluk.
……Respondent/s
(By Sri/Smt. S.V.S., Adv.,)
: ORDER:
BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR - JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Opposite Party in complaint No.376/2012 preferred this appeal against the order dated:31/07/2014 passed by the District Commission which allowed the complaint by directing the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.3,30,000/- along with interest @ 12% pa towards theft of the vehicle and also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost.
2. The parties to the appeal shall be referred to as complainant and Opposite Party respectively as per their rankings before the District Commission.
3. The counsel for respondent reports the death of the respondent, but not brought the L.Rs of the respondent on record.
4. The brief facts of the complaint is that:-
The complainant is the absolute owner of the vehicle GLX Indigo Car bearing registration No.KA:19-B-6103 which is valid from 13.10.2008 to 12.10.2009. Such being the case, in between 09.08.2009 and 10.08.2009 the vehicle of the complainant was stolen by unknown persons. Immediately he approached the Opposite Party officials, where he advised to lodge a complaint before the jurisdictional police station. Accordingly the complainant registered a complaint with regard to the theft of the vehicle and FIR was drawn. There afterwards the complainant approached the Opposite Party to claim compensation by virtue of the policy for theft of the vehicle as the police have filed “C” report in that regard. But the Opposite Party instead of settling the claim have repudiated without any valid reasons. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint against the Opposite Party alleging deficiency in service.
5. After service of notice, the Opposite Party appeared through his counsel and filed the version contending that the complainant had not informed the theft of the vehicle within 48 hours as stipulated in the policy terms and conditions and complainant also complained the theft of the vehicle belatedly to the police station. Hence, they repudiated the claim and submit no deficiency in service.
6. The counsel for appellant submits that the District Commission without considering their objections have allowed the complaint directing them to pay Rs.3,30,000/-, whereas the insured declared value is only Rs.2,80,000/-. In spite of that, the District Commission has awarded Rs.3,30,000/- without any valid reasons. Hence, preferred this appeal and prays to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission.
7. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order, it is an admitted fact that the deceased/complainant is the absolute owner of the Indigo GLX Car bearing registration No.KA:19-B-6103 and it is also an admitted fact that the policy was in force as on the date of theft of the vehicle.
8. The only contention taken by the Opposite Party in repudiating the claim is that, the complainant had belatedly informed them and also belatedly complained before the police station with regard to the theft of the vehicle and as per the terms and conditions, the complainant supposed to inform the theft within 48 hours of its occurrence. Hence, prays to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission.
9. We noticed that the theft was occurred on 08/09th of August 2009, whereas the complainant had informed the police station on 28.08.2009 and after the complaint, the police have filed “C” report. After receiving the “C” report, the complainant informed the Opposite Party for settlement of the claim by virtue of the policy.
10. We noticed that there is delayed information to both the police and insurance company which resulted in deprival of an opportunity for investigation by both police and Insurance Company. The complainant/respondent has not explained before this Commission or before the District Commission with regard to the delay in informing the theft of the vehicle. Hence, there is negligence on the part of complainant himself and “c” report clearly shows that they could not trace out the vehicle and this goes to shows that the reason for not tracing the vehicle is only because of delayed information. The District Commission failed to appreciate the defence taken by the Opposite Party. Hence, the order passed by the District Commission has to be set-aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The appeal is allowed. No costs.
The impugned order dated:31.07.2014 passed by Dakshina Kannada District Commission, in C.C.No.376/2014 is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the appellant/Opposite Party.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
