Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/840/2013

Yuvraj S Tarale. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager. TATA AIG General Insurance Cmpy Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

M.V.Salunke

16 Mar 2015

ORDER

(Order dictate by Sri V.S. Gotakhindi,  Member).

ORDER

          The complainant has filed the complaint u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in insurance service of repudiation of the claim in respect of theft of insured vehicle.

          2) O.Ps. in the version have denied the deficiency in service and justified the repudiation on the ground that there was delay in intimation of the theft and thereby terms and conditions of the policy are violated.

3) The O.P.2 has filed affidavit and complainant also filed affidavit and certain documents are produced. O.P.1 inspite of service of notice has remained absent. Hence placed exparte.

          4) We have heard the arguments and also perused the records including written arguments.

5) Now the point for our consideration is that, whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and is entitled to the reliefs sought?

6) Finding on the point is in Negative, for the following reasons.

REASONS

          7) It is not in dispute that the complainant was owner of the vehicle K.A-22 EK-6128 and it was insured with the O.P. Company for the period of 2/11/2012 to 1/11/2013.

          8) The complainant has alleged that on 3/12/2012 said vehicle was parked and later noticed it was missing. The complainant reported the matter of missing to the concerned police station on 19/12/2012 the Crime No.476/2012 and final charge sheet was came to be filed on 16/4/2013. The police did not trace the vehicle. Ultimately the complainant reported the theft of the vehicle to the O.Ps. on 17/1/2013.                                                                                                                                                                                         

 

          9) Grievance of the complainant is that, he submitted claim petition to the O.Ps. which has been repudiated and the same is unjust and illegal.

          10) As noted above, certain facts are not in dispute. There is delay in lodging the complaint to the Police and so also, reporting of theft to the Insurance Company.

          11) Under the circumstances, it is to be considered whether repudiation of the claim is just or otherwise.

          12)  The O.Ps. relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.4964/2012 wherein that revision petition the Hon’ble National Commission relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme court in civil Appeal No.6739/2010, wherein the Apex Court observed that delay in lodging F.I.R and delay in insurance company is fatal and upheld the repudiation of claim by insurance company. Hon’ble National Commission reported in I (2014) CPJ 18, 54, 71 wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that repudiation of the claim on the ground of delay in reporting or informing theft is just and legal.

          13) As noted here before, admittedly, there is delay on the part of the complainant in report in the theft the Police as well as to the O.Ps. Insurance Company.

          14) Considering the facts, evidence on record and the conclusion arrived at, following order:

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

 (Order dictated, corrected & then pronounced in the Open Forum on this 16^th day of March 2015).

          Member                         Member                         President.

gm*