Complaint filed on: 26-08-2010

                                                      Disposed on: 15-11-2010

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.2003/2010

DATED THIS THE 15^th NOVEMBER 2010

PRESENT

SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT

SMT.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K., MEMBER

Complainant: -                       

                                                Sri.Mahesh.M,

                                                S/o. Sri.Mahadev,

                                                Aged about 30 years,

                                                Residing at No.258,

                                                6^th cross, Vidhanasoudha

                                                Layout, Laggere, Bangalore-58

V/s

Opposite party: -          

                                                R.S.Arasu, Deputy Manager,

                                                Service Centre,

                                                The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd,

                                                (Govt. of India undertaking)

                                                Regional office:

                                                Leo Shopping complex,

                                                4^th Floor, 44/45,

                                                Residency Road Cross,

                                                Bangalore-25

O  R D E R

SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT.,

          The brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party are, that he was the absolute owner and in possession of Maruthi Omni bearing Reg. No.KA-05-P-7591. That he had taken a loan of Rs.70,000/- from a financier, out of which, he had paid total a sum of Rs.40,000/- to his financier, and is liable to pay the balance amount. That on 10-11-2009 he had parked his car in front of his house at 10.30 PM, on the next day at 6 AM, he saw that his car was stolen. On 11-11-2009 he gave a complaint to the concerned police, who have issued acknowledgement on 19-11-2009. Then on 20-11-2009 he informed the OP about theft of the car. That he made a claim for insurance amount, when the police stated to have not traced the car. But the OP through their letter dated 20-11-2009 refused to pay insurance amount and therefore has prayed for awarding damages of Rs.1,44,000/- under different heads.

          2. OP who is served with the notice of this complaint has remained absent, therefore is set exparte.

          3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and alongwith the complaint, he has produced the repudiation letter dated 20-11-2009, copy of the complaint he had given to the concerned police, with copies of police investigation papers. We have heard the complainant who is in person and perused the records.

          4. On consideration of the complaint allegations, affidavit and documents he has produced, there is no dispute that this complainant stated to have lost his car by way of theft which had been parked in front of his house on 10-11-2009. It is manifest that the complainant as per terms of the policy has not taken care for the security of the insured vehicle from theft by keeping it securely. The complainant further stated that he had parked the car in open in front of his house, on the next day, when he saw it was stolen. Therefore it is clear that the complainant did not taken adequate measure to protect the insured property.

          5. Further, it could be seen, the vehicle though had been stolen on 10-4-2009, stated to had given complaint to the police on 11-11-2009 who had issued acknowledgement dated 19-9-2009. The complainant has produced a copy of the police complaint he had given to the concerned police. Admittedly, the complainant who lost the vehicle on the night of 10-11-2009 and 11-11-2009 gave a police complaint on 19-11-2009 i.e. after more then 8 days. Thereafter, it is found that the complainant did not inform the insurance company about theft of the car as found from the letter of repudiation dated 20-4-2010 issued by the OP. The complainant informed the OP about theft only on 20-11-2009 i.e. after more then 10 days. The OP through this repudiation letter repudiated the claim of the complainant, on the ground that, theft of the vehicle was not reported to them, within 48 hours of the occurrence.

          6. The complainant has not disputed that, condition of the policy warrant that any loss or theft of insured property should be intimated to the company within 48 hours of occurrence. The complainant has violated the material conditions of the policy, as the result, the opportunity available to the OP for tracing the vehicle through the police and also through their own investigating agency has been denied and is lost. Thus the complainant who has violated the condition of the policy and did not take appropriate action after theft is not entitled for insurance amount from the OP. The OP therefore has rightly repudiated the claim and we find no deficiency in it. The complaint therefore is to be dismissed. With the result, we pass the following order:

ORDER

Complaint is dismissed. No cost.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 15^th November 2010.

Member                                                          President