This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Yedunuthala Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri.K. Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite parties 1&2; upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following order;

O R D E R

(Per Sri R.Kiran Kumar, Member)

          This Complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.     The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant insured his Hero Honda Splendor Plus 100CC bearing No.AP-36-S-2342 with the opposite party No.1  under motor package policy for the period from 22-09-2009 to 21-09-2010 for an IDV of Rs.32,000/- vide policy No.3005/57700552/00800 with cover note No.57700552 dt. 30-09-2009.  The complainant submitted that on 19-07-2010 he went to Khammam to attend some work on his vehicle, he parked the vehicle on road side in Nehru Nagar, Khammam and came back after attending the work and found his vehicle is missing.  The complainant submitted that he lodged a complaint before P.S., Khammam II-town, on the same day.  The complainant further submitted that the Police Registered FIR and investigated the case for 6 months from 19-07-2010 to 20-12-2010 and come to conclusion that the missing / stolen vehicle of the complainant along with other vehicle of Sri. Venkateswar Rao reported to have been treated as unidentified and final report was submitted on 20-12-2010 to the Hon’ble I.Addl. JFCM, Khammam.  The complainant also submitted that on 19-10-2011 he intimated the same to the opposite parties along with relevant documents and requested to settle the claim.  The complainant further submitted that as the opposite parties failed to settle the claim he approached the Insurance Ombudsman and requested to direct the respondents for the claim amount, the Ombudsman registered the said case and passed an order No.I.O(Hyd)G-049/2012-13 and in that award they came to conclusion that the police could not investigate the same within time and there is an unreasonable delay in investigating the case, as such dismissed the claim.  The complainant further submitted that the very order of the Ombudsman is illegal, and against to the principles of natural justice, as he paid the amount for Insurance of his vehicle and the opposite parties has to pay the cost of the vehicle, if there is any unavoidable things were happen, as the opposite parties failed to fulfill their promise which amounts to the deficiency of service for that the complainant approached the Forum.

3.       On behalf of the complainant, the following documents filed and marked as Exs..A1 to A5.

Ex.A1-Photocopy of the Policy dt. 30-09-2009 issued by opposite party.

Ex.A2-Photocopy of proceedings of award from the Insurance Ombudsman, Hyderabad.

Ex.A3:-Photocopy of Letter addressed by OP in favour of the complainant                 dt.31-01-2013.

Ex.A4:-Photocopy of Final Report, dt. 20-12-2010.

Ex.A5:-Letter addressed by the complainant to the OP No.1 company along with postal receipt, dt. 19-10-2011.

4.       On receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed counter.   In their counter the opposite parties denied all the averments made by the complainant in his complaint.  The opposite parties submitted that the claim of the complainant was rejected as the complainant had given the report to the police after lapse of 55 days with unreasonable delay and further intimation to the company with a delay of 59 days which was not accordance with the policy terms & conditions and there is no iota of truth in filing the above complaint as they are not liable to pay compensation to the complainant.  The opposite parties also submitted that the complainant had not reported the theft of the vehicle to the police on his own and there was no entry in the G.D. register of the police station concerned and the police had registered a case basing on the complaint given by one Sri. P. Venkateswar Rao vide crime No.177/2010 of P.S. II-Town, Khammam for loss of Venkateswarao’s vehicle on 12-09-2010, but in the said FIR, the loss of the vehicle of the complainant namely K. Kanaka Raju’s vehicles was not mentioned and further submitted that in the final report the police did not mentioned about the investigation done by the police regarding the tracing out  the vehicle, as such it is clearly reveals that the allegation that the vehicle of the complainant had lost was not established by the police concerned as such the complainant  has no right to claim compensation against the opposite parties and prayed to dismiss the complaint.    

5.       Upon perusing the material available on record, now the points that arose for consideration are,  

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim?
2. To what relief?

Point No.1: -

6.       The case of the complainant is that he insured his Hero Honda Splendor Plus 100CC bearing No.AP-36-S-2342 with the opposite party No.1 under motor package policy for the period from 22-09-2009 to 21-09-2010 for an IDV of Rs.32,000/- vide policy No.3005/57700552/00800 with cover note No.57700552 dt.30-09-2009. According to the complainant on 19-07-2010 he went to Khammam to attend some work on his vehicle, he parked the vehicle on road side in Nehru Nagar, Khammam and came back after attending the work and found his vehicle is missing, on that he had given a complaint before P.S. II-Town, Khammam on the same day.   According to complainant the police registered a case in Crime No.177/2010 for the offence under sec.379 of IPC and after due investigation and bonafide search, the police filed final report before the Hon’ble I Additional JFCM at Khammam as undetected.  According to the complainant, after filing final report as undetected, the complainant approached the opposite party and submitted all necessary documents, even after receipt of all necessary documents as opposite parties failed to settle the claim of the complainant; the complainant approached the Forum for redressal.

7.       From the documents and material available on record, the complainant purchased Hero Honda motorcycle and the same was insured with the opposite parties.  The Policy is valid from 22-09-2009 to 21-09-2010.  That on 19-07-2010, the vehicle of the complainant had stolen by unknown persons, immediately the complainant approached the police authorities and police registered a case, in Crime No.177/2010 and after due enquiry the police filed final report.  As per the final report in crime No.177/2010 later it is came to know that on the same day another H.H. Splendor Plus No.AP-36-S-2342 worth Rs.15,000/-, motor cycle of Kama Kanaka Raju, S/o. Christopher, R/o. Dornkal was also committed theft by some un-known culprits.  We also observed that except suspecting the documents filed by the complainant and to disprove the case, the opposite parties failed to produce any material before this Forum.  After claim application submitted by the complainant and even after filing this complaint before this Forum, the opposite parties failed to settle the claim, it could be said that the opposite parties failed to comply the terms and conditions of the policy, which is in our view amounts to deficiency in service.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the claim amount.  As such this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.

Point No.2:-

8.       In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties to pay the claim amount of Rs.32,000/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand only) with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 12-07-2013 till the date of actual payment  and also awarded Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) toward costs of the litigation.

          Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 11^th day of February, 2015.

  Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

       -None-                                                                           -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

   Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum, Kha