D.o.F:25/3/2012

D.o. Order:31/01/2013

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                       CC.178/2012        

                        Dated this, the 31st  day of January 2013.

PRESENT:

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                             : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                      : MEMBER

SMT.K.G.BEENA                                      : MEMBER

Dinesh Bhat,

S/o Mukunda Bhat, Deeksha Nilaya,      : Complainant

Now R/ near New Press Club

Near New Busstand  Kasaragod.

(Adv.A.M.Abdul Jamal,Kasaragod)

National Insurance Co.Ltd,

Highlane Plaza, M.G.Road, Kasaragod.  : Opposite party

Rep by its  Senior Manager.

(Adv.M.Balagopalan,Kasaragod)

                                                     ORDER

SMT.P.RAMADEVI  : MEMBER

   The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:

   That the complainant is an owner of the Bajaj make Pulsar Motor cycle bearing Reg No.KL-14-G-6614 and the same was insured with opposite party as per policy No.571101/10/6200014331 from 18/2/2011 to 17/2/2012.  The complainant is a photographer.  The complainant has got work at Kozhikode and he parked the motor cycle in front of his studio, Insight studio and Video, Padhur complex, near New Muncipal Busstand, Kasaragod on 21/7/2011 and went to Kozhikode.  The vehicle was parked there as it required by his staff on the next day morning for studio purpose.  On the next day ie on 22/7/11 at 9.a.m the vehicle was found missing.  The same was informed to the complainant by his staff, Shabas.  The complainant’staff informed the same to the Kasaragod Police and opposite party.  The police asked him to enquire himself about the missing.  The complainant’staff made enquiries and he could not trace out the vehicle.  Then the Kasaragod Police registered a case  as crime No.720/2011 under sec.379 of IPC.  The complainant went  to the office of opposite party again  on 1/8/2011 to handover the copy of FIR.  But the office was found locked as it was late.  The complainant informed the incident to the opposite party in writing on 2/8/2011 and the opposite party told the complainant that it will be considered after six months.  The Kasaragod  police closed the case and final report filed as ‘’undetected’.  Then the complainant approached the opposite party and  submitted a letter dt 16/4/12 asking the claim form.  Opposite party has sent a reply to the above letter stating that unreasonable delay in intimating the incident and therefore repudiating the claim.  Thereafter the complainant sent notice asking to pay the claim and the same is replied by opposite party that the complainant violated the policy conditions.  According to the complainant the opposite party repudiated the claim unlawfully hence this complaint is filed for necessary reliefs.

2    Opposite party appeared through counsel and filed their version.  The opposite party denied all the allegations made against him in the complaint.   Opposite party admit that complainant is a policy holder of opposite party.  But opposite party denied that the incident of  theft was informed by the complainant to opposite party.  According to opposite party the complainant had never approached the opposite party till 16/11/2012.  According to opposite party as per the policy conditions the complainant has to inform the theft or loss of vehicle forthwith before the opposite party in writing and also the police  so as to enable the  opposite party to pursue the recovery of the insured vehicle.  The complainant filed this complaint before the police only 11 days after the theft and thereby spoiled the scope of detection of insured vehicle.  According to opposite party the complainant had  abandoned  the vehicle by the side of a public road  during night time without any care and attention and that conduct of complainant itself would amount to violation of  terms and condition of policy.  Hence the repudiation of claim is lawful and the complainant is liable to be dismissed.  

3.   Here the complainant is examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A9 marked and opposite party has not adduced any oral evidence and Ext.B1 marked on the side of opposite party.

4.   After considering the facts of the case the following issues raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of opposite party?

2.  If so what is the relief as cost and compensation?

5.     Here the specific contention of the opposite party is that there is unreasonable delay in informing the incident of theft to the opposite party by the  complainant and it is against policy condition According to opposite party as  per condition No.1 of the policy

“    Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest or fatal injury in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or other criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this Policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender.”

6.  Now  the question to be answered is whether there is inordinate delay in informing the incident of theft to opposite party as well as police and thereby the complainant violated the policy condition? 

     Here inorder to prove the case of  the complainant the complainant produced Ext.A3&A4 documents.  Ext.A3 is the FIR dt.1-8-2011.  The theft of the vehicle took place on 21-7-2011.  The complainant came to know the missing of the vehicle on 22-7-2011 at 9. A.M.  According to the complainant the theft of the vehicle was informed to the police on 22-7-11 itself  by his staff and police asked the complainant’s staff to enquire himself  about the missing.  Then the complainant’s staff enquired into the matter and he would not trace  out the vehicle.  Only thereafter the police lodged the FIR on 1-8-2011 whether this statement of the complainant can be believable.  If a theft or any other  incident taken place usually the looser will file a complaint before the police.  On receipt of the complaint the police will register a crime and copy of the FIR   will be served to the complainant.   According to PW1, he and his staff filed a written  complaint before the police but he has no evidence to show that his  staff filed such a complaint before the police on 22-7-2011.  Ext.A4 is the copy of the alleged letter dt.2-8-11 informing theft to the opposite party.  Marking of the Ext.A4 is objected  by the opposite party since the same is  not received by the opposite party.  Ext.A4 is marked subject to objection.  Here the contention of opposite party is sustainable because there is no acknowledgment on the side of  complainant to show that letter dt.2-8-2011 is served to the opposite party.  So we  can not  rely on Ext.A4.  Ext.A5 is  final report of the police stating that the vehicle is  undetected .  Ext.A6 is the copy of the letter.  First portion of Ext.A6 reveals that the theft is informed as per Ext.A6..  Ext.A7 is the repudiation of claim letter  issued by opposite party stating that  there is unreasonable  delay in informing the theft to  the opposite party and thereby violated the policy condition .  Ext.A8 is the lawyer notice and Ext.A9 is the reply to Ext.A8.

8.    Here    the opposite party contended that the complainant kept the vehicle in an  abandoned condition and he only came to know the theft on 1-8-2011  after 11 days of its occurrence.  The documents filed by the complainant will prove the above contention of the opposite party.

   On going through the entire facts  in records and the evidence adduced by the party we cannot find any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party.  The complainant failed to inform the theft in time either to the police and to the opposite party and thereby he failed to comply the condition No.1 of the policy.  Hence we are of the  opinion that there is no merit in the complaint hence the  complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Exts:

 A1-copy of RC

A2-copy of certificate of insurance of motorcycle.

A3-FIR

A4-1-8-11-copy of letter from PW1 to OP

A5-Final report

A6-16-4-12-copy of the letter

A7-repudiation of claim letter

A8-copy of lawyer notice

A9-reply of Ext.A8

B1- policy

PW1- Dinesh Bhat,-complainant

Sd/                                              Sd/                                               Sd/

MEMBER                          MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

eva

/forwarded by order/

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT