Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1271/2017

N. Venkatesh S/o. S.N. Narayanappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

(By Shri/Smt Anees Ahmed )

21 Mar 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH 2022

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH    : PRESIDENT

MR. K. B. SANGANNAVAR                                : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. DIVYASHREE M.                                     : MEMBER

Appeal No. 1271/2017

 

N. Venkatesh S/o. S.N. Narayanappa Dasarabeedi, Sarjapura Town, Anekal Tq. Bengaluru Dist-562 125       (By Sri. Anees Ahmed) V/s	……Appellant
TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.      3rd Floor, J.P. and Devi      Jambukeshwar Arcade,      No.69, Millers Road, Bengaluru-52.      Rep. by its Manager 2.  TATA AIG General Insurance Co., Ltd.,      Peninsula Business Park      Tower-A, 15th Floor,      G.K.Marg, Lower Parcel      Mumbai-400013.      Rep. by Manager (By Sri. A.N. Krishnamurthy)	…Respondents

O R D E R

BY HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed against the order dated 20.04.2017 passed in C.C.No.985/2016 on the file of I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore.

2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant insured his vehicle bearing registration No.TN-70-F-2136 with the OP insurance company and insurance was valid from 09.02.2015 to 08.02.2016.  During subsistence of the policy, on 13.03.2015 the said vehicle got theft.  Complainant lodged the claim before OP/insurance company.  The insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground of violation of conditions.  Hence, the complaint.
3. The District Forum dismissed the complaint.  Against the said order complainant is in appeal.
4. Perused the impugned order.  On the ground of non-filing of FIR within reasonable time and also on the ground of delay in intimating the insurance company complaint was dismissed.  Complainant made efforts to trace out vehicle for 4 days.  When vehicle was not traced he lodged the complaint before police and intimated the insurance company.  Cases relating to delay in intimating about theft to insurer for about 3 to 6 months are allowed by the National Commission.  In the circumstances, Insurer is liable to make good the loss.  Thus, the matter requires reconsideration.  Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.  Matter is remanded to the District Forum to consider the matter afresh and dispose of the case within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

 

MEMBER                   JUDICIAL MEMBER          PRESIDENT

CV*