Date of Filing:13.07.2009<br /> Date of Order: 18.01.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1643 OF 2009<br /> <br /> Krishnappa<br /> S/o. Late Muniyappa<br /> R/at Appasandra Village<br /> Jadigenahalli Post, Hoskote Taluk<br /> Bangalore Rural District Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. M/s. ICICI Lombard General<br /> Insurance Co. Ltd., Zenith House<br /> Keshavrao Khade Marg<br /> Opp. Race Course, Mahalaxmi<br /> Mumbai 400 034<br /> <br /> 2. M/s. ICICI Lombard General<br /> Insurance Co. Ltd.<br /> Bangalore Regional Office<br /> ICICI Towers, Commissariat Road<br /> Bangalore 560 025<br /> Rep. by its Manager<br /> <br /> 3. M/s. ICICI Lombard General<br /> Insurance Co. Ltd.<br /> No. 89, Hosur Main Road<br /> Madivala, Koramangala II Floor<br /> S.V.R. Complex, Bangalore<br /> Rep. by its Manager Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> The facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of Hero Honda Motor Cycle. He had insured the vehicle with opposite party. Policy was valid from 16.07.2008 to 15.07.2009. On 29.08.2008 complainant parked his motor cycle in the taluk office compound. After finishing his work complainant went to the place where he had parked the vehicle. But, he could not found the motor cycle. Complainant made enquiry with his friends and relatives about the motor cycle. On enquiry it is revealed that none of them taken his motor cycle. He searched the motor cycle in the entire village and surrounding villages. He lodged complaint to the Hoskote Police on 17.10.2008. Thereafter, the complainant reported the fact of theft to the opposite party and requested for settlement of the claim in terms of insurance policy. The opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that theft was not immediately reported to the police and also to the company. Hence, the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to settle the claim as per the declared value of the motor cycle in a sum of Rs. 25,200/-. <br /> 2. Opposite party filed defence version stating that compliant is not maintainable. The complainant informed theft of motor cycle to the opposite party after inordinate delay. Opposite party requested the complainant to submit claim form along with two ignition key and other relevant documents. But the complainant has not produced original documents including keys. There is serious doubt about the theft of the vehicle on the basis of the investigation and police documents. Complainant has informed the matter after lapse of several months. It is against the terms and conditions. Therefore, the opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of respective parties filed.<br /> 4. Arguments are heard.<br /> 5. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the repudiation of the claim by the opposite party is justified?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?<br /> 6. It is admitted fact that the complainant had insured his motor cycle with the opposite party. The copy of insurance policy has been produced. Insurance was valid from 16.07.2008 to 15.07.2009. The declared value of the vehicle was Rs. 25,200/-. As per the case of the complainant he had parked his motor cycle in the compound of taluk office, Hoskote on 29.08.2008 and the theft of motor cycle has took place on that day. As per the admitted case he lodged complaint to the police on 17.10.2008 after lapse of more than 2 ½ months. If at all the motor cycle has lost or theft has taken place nothing prevented the complainant to file his complaint or inform the police within a reasonable period. A no sensible person will take more than 2 ½ months to inform the police regarding the occurrence of theft. Admittedly, the motor cycle was parked in the taluk office compound of Hoskote and the police station is admittedly situated in Hoskote. The complainant immediately would have informed the police about the theft of the vehicle. The complainant has also not informed the insurance company about the occurrence of theft soon after the incident. As per the policy conditions in case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under the policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and also to the company and as per the policy conditions notice shall have given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or theft. But in this case the complainant has not informed the occurrence of theft immediately to the police or to the opposite party company. Therefore, there is clear violation or breach of policy conditions. Under these circumstances the repudiation of the claim by the opposite party cannot be said as unjustified. The complainant has not established as to in what manner the opposite party company has committed deficiency in rendering service. The opposite party company in the repudiation letter sent to the complainant has stated that central government has set up Insurance Ombudsman to resolve grievances relating to the claim. Ombudsman is empowered to consider the matter and the opposite party company had given address of the nearest Ombudsman also in the letter. Therefore, it is better on the part of the complainant to put up his claim or appeal before the Insurance Ombudsman. As per this forum is concerned no relief can be granted to the complainant, since, the complainant has not established any deficiency in service in rendering service on the part of opposite party. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. However, the complainant will be at liberty to move the matter before the Insurance Ombudsman as informed by the opposite party. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 7. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.<br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br />