BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.1484 OF 2008 AGAINST C.D.NO.20 OF 2007 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM NIZAMABAD
Between
T.Laxminarayan Goud S/o Venka Goud
Age 66 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Jankampet (V),District Nizamabad
Appellant/ complainant
A N D
The Branch Manager,
The United Insurance Company Ltd,
Prabha Villa, Goshala Road,
Beside Andhra Bank Extension Counter
Bodhan, Nizamabad District
Respondent/ opposite party
Counsel for the Appellants Sri V.Gourisankara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents Sri Sundar Ramayya
QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
The unsuccessful complainant filed the appeal challenging the order of the District Forum, Nizamabad in C.D.No. 20 of 2007.
The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant for his agricultural operation had purchased a Tractor bearing number AP-25D-7083 and got insured it with the respondent company vide the insurance policy bearing number 050702/47/04/00133 for the period from 12th August,2004 to 11th August,2005. On 26th June, 2005 the Tractor was taken to the field of Suleman by the son of the appellant, Sanjay Goud and Akram Sailoo. While returning from the field of Suleman, the Tractor developed mechanical problem at the outskirts of the village. Leaving the vehicle there, the son of the appellant had returned along with a mechanic to the place where the Tractor was stranded and found the Tractor missing. After making all possible efforts, the son of the appellant lodged complaint on 28th June, 2005 with the Police Kotagiri. The police registered a case in crime no.379 of 2005 under Section 379 of I.P.C. The appellant had informed the respondent company about the incident. The respondent had repudiated the claim on 13th June, 2006. The appellant claimed the sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- and compensation of Rs.50, 000/-.
The respondent has resisted the claim contending that appellant immediately after the incident had not informed the respondent company. The appellant had not taken necessary steps to safeguard the vehicle. The vehicle was left unattended. The Police filed final report stating that the vehicle is undetectable only on the statement of the son of the appellant and his farm servant, Akram Sailoo. The Police had not recorded the statements of Indur Sailoo and Trishul Shankar Rao who are the neighbors of the scene of occurrence and the appellant who is the owner of the vehicle. In violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the appellant informed the respondent on 18th July,2005, after a delay of 22 days about the theft of the vehicle. The respondent investigated the matter through an investigator, P.Rajeshwer Rao who made local enquiry and reported that the vehicle was not stolen and the claim was not genuine.
The appellant filed his affidavit and got marked exhibits, A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondent Company, RWs 1 and 2 had been examined and ExB1to B11 were marked.
The District Forum had dismissed the complaint opining that the respondent company had repudiated the claim basing on the investigation report and the appellant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent insurance company.
The point for consideration is whether the impugned order warrants any interference?
The appellant is the owner of the Tractor bearing registration number AP-25D-7083 which was insured with the respondent insurance company vide the insurance policy for the period from 12th August,2004 to 11th August,2005. The ownership of the appellant of the vehicle and the insurance coverage during the relevant period is not disputed. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant informed the respondent about the theft of the vehicle on 18th July,2005 as there was no time stipulated in the insurance policy. Further, it was contended that the investigation report was biased as it was filed by a retired sub inspector of police. The learned counsel for the respondent company supported the impugned order.
The version of the appellant is that the theft of the vehicle was caused on 26th June,2005 when and farm servant Sanjay Goud his son and farm servant Akram Sailoo left it at the outskirts of the village as the vehicle was stranded and could not be moved from there. The Tractor which is stated to have been in a condition that it cannot be moved is said to have been stolen from the place where it was stranded. It has come in to light in the investigation conducted by the investigator that Indur Sailoo and Trishul Shankar Rao have been residing at the place where the Tractor is said to have developed mechanical trouble. The son of the appellant had not informed either of these two persons about the theft of the Tractor.
The respondent company referred to terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In para 3 of the counter it is stated that “ according to the terms and conditions of the policy, notice has to be given in writing to the company immediately upon occurrence of any accident or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured has to give all such information and assistance as required by the insurance company. It is stated that in the case of theft or other criminal act, the insured should give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the opposite party in securing the conviction of the offender. The insured should take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and in the event of any accident or breakdown, the insured vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precaution. Otherwise, insured alone is responsible for the same. Due observance and fulfillment of terms and conditions of the policy so far as they relate to any claim to be done or complied with by the insured shall be condition precedent to any liability to the insurance company to make any payment under the policy”.
The appellant has stated that his son and Akram Sailoo were coming in the Tractor from Suleman’s field. Akram Sailoo is stated to be the farm servant of the appellant. The appellant’s son could have asked their farm servant to keep watch the vehicle till he returned there along with a mechanic. The vehicle was left unattended in violation of the terms of the insurance policy.
The investigator had stated in his report that the police had not made proper investigation of the case. The appellant is the owner of the Tractor. He was not examined. The residents of the locality from where the vehicle was stated to have been stolen, Indur Sailoo and Trishul Shankar Rao have not been examined by the police. The police had examined the residents of a far off locality. As aforesaid, the police had not even examined the owner of the vehicle. The investigator had pointed out that the compliant was not lodged with the police till two days lapsed after the alleged theft of the vehicle. We do not see any reason not to consider the investigation report which has to be given due credence in the circumstances of the case.
The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant informed the respondent company on 15th July, 2005 about the theft of the vehicle and it cannot be construed as the violation of the terms of the policy as no specific time has not been mentioned in the policy within which the appellant ought to have informed about the theft of the vehicle to the respondent company. The vehicle is stated to have been stolen on 26th June,2005. The matter was reported to the Police on 28th June,2005. The appellant appears on the picture for the first time on 15th July,2005 on which date he claims that he along with his son reported the theft of the vehicle to the insurance company. The terms and conditions of the insurance policy provide that the matter of the theft of the vehicle has to be reported immediately to the insurance company. Passing on the information immediately cannot be stretched as far as 22 days. It cannot be said that the delay of 22 days in intimating the respondent company can be inferred as reasonable time more so when the complaint was lodged with the police on 28th of June,2005.In the circumstances, we are inclined to hold that the respondent company has not committed any deficiency in service while repudiating the claim of the appellant. The impugned order does not warrant any interference and the appeal is liable to dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 26.08.2008 passed by the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Dt.07.07.2010
KMK*
