Per Smt T. Suneetha, Member:-

This complaint is filed U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, Seeking directions on opposite parties to pay the insurance claim amount of Rs.70,000/- together with interest @ 24% p.a.  and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony and deficiency of service committed by the opposite parties, to the complainant.   

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are hereunder:

          The complainant purchased the Honda Motor cycle CB Unicorn- Dazzler (Red colour) model 2010 in Santosh Auto Mobiles, Guntur on 26-08-10 having temporary registration No.AP 07 TQ TR – 0337 and insured the same with the opposite party.  On 14-10-10 at 4.30 PM the complainant parked his vehicle  at 1^st Line, Ramannapet, Guntur and  went to meet his son in near by N.R.I College and reached to the parking place at 4.45 PM and found that the vehicle was missing.  Complainant searched for the stolen vehicle but failed to trace.  The complainant reported in the Pattabhipuram Police Station and the same was registered under crime No.242/10 and Sec. 379 I.P.C. and informed the same to the 1^st opposite party on 18-10-10 and to the 2^nd opposite party on 21-10-10 by submitting all the relevant documents to the opposite parties.  The investigation authority i.e. Inspector of Police, Pattabhipuram police station, Guntur urban, issued final report on 30-04-11.  The complainant on 22-02-12 furnished all the relevant documents to the 2^nd opposite party as demanded by them through a letter dated 15-07-11. Finally the 2^nd opposite party repudiated the claim without any valid reason. The complainant issued a registered legal notice through his counsel on 19-06-12 to the opposite parties, they received the same and kept quiet.  The complainant suffered mental agony and monitory loss due to the adamant nature of the opposite parties.  Therefore there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint. 

3.      1^st Opposite party filed its version which is in brief as follows. 

          As seen from the FIR though the alleged theft occurred on             14-10-10, he gave report only on 06-11-10 at Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur and police registered the occurrence only on 06-11-10.  Thus there is a delay of 22 days in giving the report.  Further the police authorities gave final report on 30-04-11 mentioning that the case is pending more than 13 months without any progress accord permission to refer this case as deductible temporarily on 13-04-11 by closing the CD.  The C.I. of police opined that the theft might have occurred long prior to the date of alleged theft as stated by the complainant.  In those circumstances this opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant. 

Sec 39 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988

“No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be dragon in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner”.      

4.      The complainant has no permanent driving license, permanent registration certificate, delayed FIR.  The complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy.  Thus repudiation made by the opposite parties is justified and they are not liable to compensate the complainant.  It is therefore prayed the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs. 

5.      2^nd opposite party remained exparte on 19-11-12

6.      The complainant and opposite parties filed their respective affidavits. Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked on behalf of the complainant.  Exs. B-1 to B-8 were marked on behalf of the opposite parties.    

7.      Now the points that arose for consideration in this          complaint are:      

1.  Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of      

     service?

2.  To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

1. POINT NO. 1:- The complainant lost his vehicle Honda Motor cycle on 14-10-10. The complainant informed about the theft to the 1^st opposite party on 18-10-10 (as per ExA4 dated 18-10-10) with delay of 4 days and complained at Pattabhipuram police station on                 06-11-10 (as per the FIR Ex.A-3 dated 06-11-10) with delay of 22 days. The police referred the case as UNDEDUCTABLE temporarily saying that they could not find offenders or stolen bike despite making possible efforts. Due to the belated complaint given by the complainant the police were deprived of the offenders or the bike.

The citation filed by the 1^st opposite party Kaushalendra kumar misra Vs The Oriental Insurance Complaint. Ltd RP.No 4043 of 2028 (2012(1)CPR362(NC)) is a case of accident whereas the case on hand is of theft. Hence it is not applicable to the facts of the present case. However the Forum would rely upon the following decision to decide the case.

1. National Commission in first appeal No.321 of 2005  between New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Trilochan Jain decided as below : 

“In this case opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that there was a delay of 9 days in reporting the theft, which deprived the appellant of its right to investigate the matter and that the respondent had not taken adequate steps to safe guard the vehicle in violation of clause 5 of the insurance policy.  In the present case, the respondent did not care to inform the insurance company about the theft for a period of 9 days, which could be fatal to the investigation.  The delay in lodging the FIR after 2 days of the coming to know of the theft and 9 days to the insurance company, can be fatal as, in the meantime, the car could have traveled a long distance or may have been dismantled by that time and sold to Kabaadi (scrap dealer).”  The appeal is dismissed in view of the above holding. 

The complainant informed the opposite parties and reported with 22 days delay to the police and 4 days delay to the opposite parties. Therefore the opposite parties are not given chance to investigate into the matter and come to a conclusion.  Therefore we cannot find fault with the opposite parties.

9.      In view of the above discussion the Forum comes to a considered opinion that the repudiation by the opposite parties is justifiable.  Therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. The point is answered against the complainant.     

10.    POINT NO.2:-   In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs. 

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 17^th day of January, 2013.

MEMBER                                                                                  PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties: -

PRESIDENT