Date of Filing:14.11.2007<br /> Date of Order: 12.03.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2008<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 /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2268 OF 2007 <br /> <br /> H.C. Betsur,<br /> Advocate,<br /> S/o C.B. Betsur, R/at No. 2007, <br /> 12th Cross, I ‘C’ Main,<br /> R.P.C. Layout, <br /> Bangalore-560 040. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,<br /> DO XII, Jayalakshmi Mansions,<br /> No.1001/56, II Floor,<br /> Dr. Rajkumar Road,<br /> Rajajinagar IV Block,<br /> Bangalore-560 010.,<br /> Represented by its Branch Manager. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This complaint is filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requesting that opposite party be directed to pay Rs.8,000/- the insured value of the motor cycle with interest and compensation.<br /> <br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant is the registered owner of Kinetic Honda Motor Cycle and the same is insured with the opposite party. The policy was valued from 25/9/2005 to 24/9/2006. That on 11/5/2006 complainant had parked and to his surprise the vehicle was missing and same was stolen by some one. Immediately he gave complaint to the Halsurgate Police. The case was registered in FIR No. 181/2006 U/Sec.379 IPC. Complainant intimated the opposite party on 19/9/2006 regarding theft of the vehicle. The Police submitted “C” report. The opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that, complainant failed to intimate the opposite party immediately after the occurrence. Hence, the complaint.<br /> 2. Notice was served to opposite party. Opposite party appeared through counsel and filed defence version admitting that, vehicle was insured with the opposite party and the policy was in force. Theft had taken place on 11/5/2006, but the complainant informed the opposite party on 19/9/2006. If the Forum comes to conclusion that claim can be allowed than the complainant is not entitled for interest. The compensation payable to the complainant as per the terms of the policy is declared value of the vehicle.<br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Arguments are heard. <br /> 4. The point for consideration is:-<br /> Whether the opposite party can be directed to <br /> pay the declared value of the vehicle?<br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. This is very simple case. Complainant is the advocate. There is no dispute in respect of the facts of the case. The complainant has produced copy of the complaint. The complainant had lodged complaint with Police on 11/5/2006 on the date of theft itself. The Police registered a case in FIR No.181/2006. After investigation they have submitted “C” report. Copy of “C” report and complaint are produced. As per the policy condition No.1 in case of theft or other Criminal Act which may be the subject of claim under the policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender. So as per this clause in case of theft of the vehicle the complainant has to give immediate notice to the police. In this case, the complainant had lodged complaint to the Police on the date of theft itself. Therefore, there was absolutely no delay in intimating the Police, the fact of the theft. The opposite party should not have rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that, there is delay in intimating the theft. The opposite party in the objections stated that, if the Forum comes to conclusion that the opposite party is ready to pay the declared value of the vehicle. I am of the opinion that the repudiation of the claim of the opposite party is not justified in this case. The complainant is entitled LDV amount of Rs. 8,000/- since there is a delay in payment. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for interest on the said amount from the date of repudiation. The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.20,000/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case it is not a case to grant compensation. Therefore, the claim of the complainant in respect of compensation is refused. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.8,000/- (IDV amount) along with interest at 12% p.a from 19/9/2006(date of repudiation of claim) till realization. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings to the complainant.<br /> 7. The opposite party is directed to pay the amount to the complainant directly by way of D.D or cheque with intimation to this Forum.<br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2008.<br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br />