Complaint filed on: 16-09-2010
Disposed on: 05-01-2011
BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052
C.C.No.2124/2010
DATED THIS THE 5TH JANUARY 2011
PRESENT
SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT
SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER
SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER
Complainant: -
Sri.S.N.Bhojaraj S/o. Najappa,
Aged about 34 years,
Residing at No.11, 30th Block,
4th Main, Magadi Road,
Police quarters, Bangalore
V/s
Opposite party: -
M/s. Shriram General Insurance
Company Ltd, S-5, 2nd Floor,
Monarch Chambers,
Infantry Road, Bangalore-01
Reptd.by its Manager
O R D E R
Brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party are, that he is the owner of a Hero Honda Motor bike, which was insured with OP having valid insurance policy from 19-12-2009 to 8-12-2010. That his motor bike was stolen on 15-1-2010 at abut 7.30 AM near T.R.Mill circle at Rajarajeshwari temple, 5th Main Road. He then filed a complaint to Chamarajapet police on 19-1-2010. That he immediately after theft, personally approached the OP man one Muniyappa and informed him about theft of the vehicle, who assured to put up the file. Thereafter, he approached the OP to settle the matter by paying compensation, but the OP neglected and refused. He then got issued a legal notice to the OP on 16-7-2010 calling upon the OP to pay the value of the bike Rs.18,000/-. The OP has failed to comply and therefore has prayed for a direction to the OP to pay him Rs.18,000/- with interest at 18% per annum and also to award compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
2. OP has appeared through his advocate and filed version, admitting issuance of the policy covering the bike and its validity period. But it is contended that they were intimated about theft after lapse of 3 months, after the theft and they had issued the claim form to the complainant. They had also requested the complainant to submit the claim form along with relevant documents including two ignition key but inspite of repeated request he did not submit the claim form with necessary documents. Therefore the OP pointing to the delay in filing the complaint to the police and informing them about theft has stated that no claim was made with them and by denying any deficiency has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and one legal officer of the OP have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with the complaint has produced a copy of insurance policy, copy of RC and copies of few police investigation papers. We have heard the counsel for the complainant. Advocate for the OP since remained absent, he is taken as heard and perused the records.
4. On the above contentions following points for determination arise.
1) Whether the complainant proves that the OP has caused deficiency in his service by not settling the insurance claim?
2) To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?
5. Our findings are as under:
Point no.1: In the negative
Point no.2: See the final Order
REASONS
6. Answer on Point No.1: According to the complainant, his motor bike was stolen on 15-1-2010, but he filed the complaint to the concerned police on 19-1-2010 after lapse of 4 days and informed the OP-insurance company about theft after lapse of 3 months. The complainant being the police official having known the requirement of law, in the event of theft of insured vehicle caused delay at each stage. Besides this, the OP has contended even after lapse of 3 months, they gave a claim form to the complainant to fill up it and submit to them with necessary documents and keys. They have further stated that the complainant despite remainders has not submitted any claim application. The complainant has not denied the statement of the OP regarding non-submission of claim by him.
7. When the complainant has not submitted any claim application with necessary document, then the question of OP paying insurance amount do not arise for consideration. Further it is found the OP though has not repudiated the claim of the complainant, the complainant has came up with this complaint without any cause of action. Thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed as it has no cause of action.
8. The counsel representing the OP has produced a copy of the order of the Hon’ble National Commission rendered in First Appeal No.321/2005 dated 9-1-2009 and submitted where there was delay in reporting theft to the concerned police and also to the insurance company. The complainant is not entitled for relief and therefore submitted for dismissal of the complaint. In this decision the Hon’ble National Commission taking note of the facts of that case held there was 9 days delay in informing the insurance company and 2 days delay in lodging the FIR, rejected the claim of the complainant by allowing appeal and set-aside the order granting relief, by the Foras below and dismissed the complaint.
9. In the case on hand, it is noticed from the contention of the OP that they issued a claim from even after knowing the complainant had informed them about theft after lapse of 3 months and instructed the complainant to file claim from with necessary documents, but the complainant it is stated did not make any claim. Considering this, OP may consider the claim application of the complainant, if he makes and take decision in accordance with law. With that liberty the complainant with holds that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. With the result, we answer point no.1 in the negative and pass the following order.
OR D E R
Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 5th January 2011.
Member Member President
