THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF JULY 2021
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
APPEAL NOS. 486/2015
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
(A Government of India Undertaking
Having its branch office at: J.C.Road,
T.G.M.A. Building, Tumkur.
And having its regional office at:
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Regional Office, 44/45, Residency Road,
Leo Shopping Complex,
Bangalore – 560 025
Represented by its Authorized Signatory
Sri. R.S.Arasu.
(By Shri/Smt. Adarsh Gangal, Adv.,)
-Versus-
T.H.Basavraju S/o Hanumanthaiah
Major, R/at SLN Extension,
Antharasanhalli, Tumkur.
………Respondent/s
(Served – absent)
: ORDER:
BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR - JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Opposite Party in complaint No.114/2014 preferred this appeal against the order dated:02.03.2015 passed by Tumkur District Commission, wherein the District Commission directed the Opposite Party to pay the insured declared value of the vehicle as per the insurance policy along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim till complaint along with cost Rs.2,000/-, failing to pay the said amount within the stipulated time of 45 days, the payable amount carries 9% p.a.
2. The parties to the appeal shall be referred to as complainant and Opposite Party respectively as per their rankings before the District Commission.
3. The brief facts of the complaint is that:-
The complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-16-W-4383 and insured the same with the Opposite Party vide policy No.423290/31/2013/649 which is valid from 27.07.2012 to 26.07.2012. When he parked the said vehicle near the State Bank of Mysore, Yellapura Branch, it was stolen by unknown person and he searched nearby places and could not trace out the vehicle. Subsequently, complainant complained to the police station about the theft of the vehicle and the police have registered a crime No.316/2012. The police have filed a “c” report as the vehicle was not traced out. Subsequently, complainant made an application for compensation towards the theft of the vehicle by virtue of the policy on 13.11.2013. But the Opposite Party instead of settling the claim, has repudiated for the reason that there is a delay in informing the theft of the vehicle within 48 hours as stipulated in the policy. Hence, filed the complaint.
4. The District Commission allowed the complaint without considering the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, appellant prays to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission.
5. We have heard the arguments.
6. On going through the memorandum of appeal and certified copy of the order and required documents produced before the District Commission, we noticed that the theft took place on 17/09/2012 when the complainant parked his vehicle near S.B.I., but he gave a police complaint after 13 days i.e. on 30.09.2012 and after filing the FIR, they have submitted a “c” report before the jurisdictional Magistrate stating that the vehicle was not traced out. Subsequently, the complainant filed a claim form with required documents in order to claim the compensation for theft of the vehicle on 13.11.2013. After receipt of the claim, the Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the complainant for the reason that there is a delay in information given to police and the insurance company. Hence, the complainant violated the terms and conditions and repudiated the claim.
7. Of-course, we agree that there is a delay in giving the police complaint and also information to the insurance company with respect to the theft of the vehicle. The complainant had not explained the reason for delay in giving police complaint and information to the insurance company neither before this Commission nor before the District Commission. The reason has not known about the delay in giving complaint by the complainant to the police and insurance company. Without any explanation, the delay cannot be condoned. Due to delay in informing the theft, the insurance company was deprived an opportunity for investigation of the theft of the vehicle. Hence, the Opposite Party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant, but whereas the District Commission has not appreciated the terms and conditions of the policy which is binding on both the parties. The complainant has no reason to get compensation towards the theft of the vehicle. As such the order is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The appeal is allowed. No costs.
The impugned order dated:02.03.2015 passed by Tumkur District Commission, in C.C.No.114/2014 is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the appellant/Opposite Party.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
