Complaint filed on: 28-09-2011
Disposed on: 23-05-2012
BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052
C.C.No.1812/2011
DATED THIS THE 23rd MAY 2012
PRESENT
SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT
SMT.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K., MEMBER
Complainant: -
Sri.Shiva Reddy
S/o. late Vangam Lakshmanna,
Aged about 58 years,
Residing at Gundlahalli village,
Gudibande taluk,
Chikkaballapur district,
Now residing at
Jilajirlu village,
Nallapareddy palli post,
Bagepalli taluk,
Chikkaballapur district,
Represented by his Power of
Attorney Sri.J.N.Gangireddy
V/s
Opposite parties: -
1. The General manager,
M/s. IFFCO-TOKIO General
Insurance Co. Ltd,
Strategic Business unit,
KSCMF building, 3rd floor,
3rd block, No.8, Cunningham
Road, Bangalore – 52
2. The Manager,
M/s. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd,
Customer service centre,
Sri Shanthi towers,
5th floor, No.141, 3rd Main,
East of NGEF layout,
Kasturi nagar,
Bangalore -43
ORDER
SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the OP, under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying to pass an order, directing the OP to pay an amount of Rs.5,31,433=00 towards the insured amount in respect of Tractor-Trailer with interest at 18% interest from 19-9-2007, to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000=00 towards interest paid by the complainant to PLD bank, and to pay Rs.25,000=00 towards expenses incurred by the complainant for visiting office, and to pay Rs.1,00,000=00 towards loss, harm, injury, hardships, mental agony and suffering because of negligence and deficiency of service and cost.
2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under.
The complainant is an agriculturist by profession, cultivating his own lands for livelihood and the entire family of the complainant is depending upon the agriculture. During the year 2006, the complainant desired to purchase a tractor for his agricultural purpose and other incidental purposes and approached the PLD Bank, Gudibande branch and requested to give financial assistance for the purpose of purchase of the tractor, and the said bank has obliged to grant the financial assistance by way of loan to purchase the tractor. The said bank has granted the loan of Rs.5,31,443=00 for the purpose of purchasing the tractor and trailer and accordingly the complainant has purchased the tractor and trailer, maker’s name TAFE limited, model 2006, chasis no.319077, engine no.S337 – 1587 and the trailer description is maker’s name GLN Engineering and Rewinding – Electricals, model 2006, Chasis no.GT-022/06. The RC book stands in the name of the complainant and tractor and trailer were registered in the RTO, Chikkaballapur and they have assigned the registered number for tractor as KA-40-T-5742 and for trailer KA-40-T-5743, and while granting the loan the said bank has taken as mortgage the agricultural land in survey no.75 measuring 9 acres 23 guntas situated in Jilajirlu village, Gulur hobli, Bagepalli taluk, Chikkaballapur district belongs to the complainant and belongs to one Shivareddy as additional mortgage. After purchasing the said tractor and trailer, the complainant has insured the said tractor and trailer with the OP for a total insured amount of Rs.5,31,443=00 and the paid the requisite premium for the period from 23-02-2006 to midnight of 22-2-2007. After purchasing the said tractor and trailer, the complainant has employed one Narasimhamurthy as a driver for the said tractor and trailer on monthly salary basis. On 19-9-2006 in the evening at 6.00 P.M. the driver went to nearby village by name Chinakayalapalli to transport some jungle wood but unfortunately even in the next day morning also the driver did not turn up by suspecting some foul play, the son of the complainant namely Narayanareddy along with the father of the driver with some other friends and relatives have searched the said tractor and trailer and the driver in the nearby villages and also some villages in Andhra Pradesh, but they have not able to trace either the tractor and trailer or the driver. The incidence of theft of the said tractor and trailer was occurred within the insured period. When their effort to trace the tractor-trailer and the driver failed the son of the complainant Narayanareddy has lodged a police complaint in the Bagepalli police station and the police have registered FIRNo.108/2006 and started to investigate the matter. In the mean time, the complainant has approached the OP and submitted the claim application seeking the claim of the insured amount and he has deposited the RC books in original and he has furnished the relevant documents including FIR and complaint, but the OP did not intimate the complainant regarding action taken on the application. After elaborate investigations and searching by the police, the police have prepared final report stating that inspite of their best efforts and investigation in the matter, they could not able to trace either the tractor and trailer or the driver and on the said observation, the police have closed the file on 9-3-2010. After the theft of the said tractor – trailer the complainant could not able to repay the loan amount as there was no income sufficient to repay the loan as his entire family is depending upon agricultural produce from his land. The said PLD bank has brought the mortgaged lands for auction to recover their dues amounting to Rs.2,78,884=00 with further interest. Even after, very long time, there was no response from the OP with regard to his claim application. Again during the month of July 2011 the complainant travelled all along from his native village to Bangalore and visited the office of the OP situated at Cunningham road, Bangalore and enquired about his claim application. The staff in the said office directed the complainant to approach the customer service centre and the complainant approached the OP at their customer service centre and enquired about his claim application. The official of the said office has asked the complainant to come after one week as his file has been closed and copy in their records. The complainant with heavy heart went back and again after one week, he approached the OP and enquired about his claim application. The officers in the said office have intimated the complainant that his claim application has been rejected. After returning back to village the complainant has noticed that the officers of the said PLC bank, Gudibande branch have issued phamlets stating that his mortgaged property as well as his movables in his house will be seized and auctioned in an open auction. The worst situation in the family of the complainant has made the family of the complainant very disgraceful before the people of the village. It is just and necessary to take into action against the OP, because of irresponsible attitude of the OP. The complainant has suffered mentally, physically and monetarily. The complainant is entitled for the insured amount and also damages. Hence, this present complaint.
3. After service of notices, the OPs have appeared through their counsel and filed objection, contending inter-alia as under:
The present complaint of the complainant is misconceived and it is not maintainable either in law or on facts. According to the definition of consumer, a person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration is termed as a consumer. However, a consumer is entitled to file a complaint under if there is any deficiency of service provided or rendered by the service provider. In the present case, the Ops have issued policy in favour of Shiva Reddy pertaining to tractor – trailer unit. Therefore Shiva Reddy is the consumer and Ops are the service providers. As per the contract of insurance, if the insured is having any complaint in respect of not settling their claims, they being consumers are at liberty to file complaint before the District forum, State commission or National Commission on the basis of quantum of compensation sought by them and the jurisdiction of the forum to entertain the said complaint. In the present case, the insured has not filed the present complaint against his service providers and the complaint is being filed by a general power of attorney holder for the reasons best known to the complainant. Therefore the present complaint filed by a GPA holder on behalf of the insured in not maintainable. The present complaint is filed by J.N.Gangi Reddy who being the power of attorney holder of Shiva Reddy, alleging deficiency of service against the OP in not settling the claim of Shiva Reddy. It is true that the Ops have issued policy in favour of Shiva Reddy in respect of Tractor- trailer bearing no.KA-40/T-5742-5743 for the period from 23-2-2006 to 22-2-2007. The claim in respect of alleged theft of Tractor- trailer was not intimated to the Ops immediately after so called missing of the vehicle by the driver of the Tractor – trailer when he took the TT unit on 19-9-202006 at 6-00 from Bagepalli to Chinnakayalapalli, the matter has been reported by the son of the insured to Bagepalli police on only 24-9-2006 and the same was registered in crime no.108/2006. In the said complaint, it is mentioned by the son of the insured that the driver of the TT unit Narasimha murthy has taken away the said TT unit on 19-9-2006 at 6.00 PM in order to transporting cement bags along with jungle wood to Chinnakayalapalli and while taking the said TT unit he informed this fact to Prabhavathamma who is the Aunt of the son of the insured. Therefore it is clear that with the consent of the relatives of the insured the driver of the TT unit has taken away the same and as per police records they could not trace out both driver of vehicle and TT unit. The alleged incident will not come under the purview of the word theft. Section 1 of the police wording speaks in respect of loss of or damage to the vehicle insured. The company will indemnify the insured against loss of damage to the vehicle insured or its accessories whilst thereon, by fire explosion self ignition or lighting, by burglary housebreaking or theft etc, etc. Hence, the incident with regard to alleged theft of tractor trailer driven away by the employee of the insured with the consent of the insured is not covered under the policy of insurance obtained by the complainant with the Ops. Since, there is no coverage for the alleged theft of missing of the TT unit under the policy of insurance, the present complaint is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed in limine. The insured Shiva Reddy has not intimated to the insurance company about the alleged theft of his vehicle, there is inordinate delay in intimating the alleged theft of vehicle both to the insurer and the police by the son of the insured and the insured. The reason mentioned by him for not lodging complaint immediately with the police or not intimating the theft of TT unit to the insurer is not satisfactory. The insured has not complied the basic conditions of the policy and therefore he is not entitled to claim any amount under the policy from his insurer. Hence the complaint is devoid of merits. If the vehicle or a thing is taken away by the consent or permission of the owner of a vehicle by the employee it can not be considered as theft. Therefore on this count also the present complaint is not maintainable. Even the policy authorities will not be having good opportunity to trace the vehicle. In the present case the jurisdictional police having received the complaint from the son of the insured on 24-9-2006 have filed C-report, therefore the police have lost opportunity to investigate the matter effectively to trace out the culprits. Because of the carelessness of the insured, he cannot claim the compensation without rendering his basic duties as per the contract of insurance. The terms and conditions of the policy are applicable both for the insured and insurer and both parties cannot act beyond the limits of the policy conditions. The alleged loss of TT unit which is the subject matter of the complainant is an act of cheating in nature and the TT unit has been driven away by the employee of the insured with the permission of the insured and alleged loss does not fall under the purview of theft. There is no cause of action for the insured to file the present complaint. So the present complaint filed by the GPA holder of the insured is not maintainable. So it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs in the interest of justice.
4. So from the averments of the complaint of the complainant and objection of the OPs, the following points arise for our consideration.
1. Whether the complainant proves that, he is entitled for the insured amount and also for damages and the OPs were negligent and there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, so he is entitled to be compensated by the Ops?
2. If point no.1 is answered in favour of the complainant, whether the complainant is entitled to relief as prayed in the complaint.
3. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are;
Point no.1: In the Negative
Point no.2: In the Negative
Point no.3: For the following order
REASONS
6. So as to prove the case, the power of attorney holder of the complainant by name J.N.Gangireddy has filed his affidavit by way of evidence, and produced 11 documents. On the other hand, one Jagamohan Rao, Chief Manager, working in the Customer Care Centre of OP has filed his affidavit, and produced 4 documents. We have heard the arguments of both sides. We have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both parties meticulously.
7. One J.N.Gangireddy, who being the power of attorney holder of the complainant has stated in his affidavit that, the complainant is an agriculturist and during the year 2006, the complainant desired to purchase a tractor for his agricultural purpose and approached the PLD Bank, Gudibande branch and requested to give financial assistance to the complainant and the said bank has obliged to grant the financial assistance by way of loan to purchase the tractor and granted the loan of Rs.5,31,443=00 for purchasing the tractor and trailer and accordingly the complainant has purchased the tractor and trailer bearing registration no.KA-40-T-5742 and KA-40-T-5743 respectively. This vehicle was registered in the RTO, Chikkaballapur and the RC book stands in the name of the complainant while granting the loan, the said bank has taken as mortgage the agricultural land in survey no.75 measuring 9 acres 23 guntas situated in Jilajirlu village, Gulur hobli, Bagepalli taluk, Chikkaballapur district belongs to the complainant and the said bank has also taken land bearing Sy.no.38/2, measuring 2 acres situated in Pulasaani Voddu, village, Kasaba hobli, Gudibande taluk Chikkaballapur district belongs to one Shivareddy as additional mortgage. After purchasing the said tractor and trailer, the complainant has insured the said tractor and trailer with the OP for a total insured amount of Rs.5,31,443=00, and the paid the requisite premium for the period from 23-02-2006 to 22-2-2007. After purchasing the said tractor and trailer, the complainant has employed one Narasimhamurthy as a driver for the said tractor and trailer on monthly salary basis. On 19-9-2006 in the evening at 6.00 P.M. the driver went to nearby village by name Chinakayalapalli to transport some jungle wood but unfortunately even in the next day morning also neither the driver nor the tractor and trailer were returned. The complainant’s son, and his friends and relatives searched the said tractor and trailer and the driver in the nearby villages and also some place of Andhra Pradesh, but they did not trance the driver or tractor-trailer. The incidence of theft of the tractor and trailer was occurred within the insured period. The son of the complainant by name Narayanareddy has lodged a complaint in the Bagepalli police station and registered FIRNo.108/2006. In the mean time, the complainant has approached the OP and submitted the claim application seeking the claim of the insured amount along with relevant documents including RC books, but the OP did not intimate the complainant about the progress of his claim application. After elaborate investigations and searching by the police in the area of districts of Chikkaballapura, Kolar, Tumkur, and also in the areas of Kadiri, Madanapalli, Hindupur, Ananthpur in Andhra Pradesh, the police have prepared final report stating the inspite of their best efforts and investigation in the matter, they could not able to trace either the tractor and trailer or the driver and accordingly, the police have closed the file on 9-3-2010. After the theft of the vehicle, the complainant could not able to repay the loan amount as there was no income sufficient to repay the loan. So the PLD bank has brought the mortgaged lands for auction to recover their dues amounting to Rs.6,78,884=00 with future interest till the date of realization of their dues. Since, there was no response from the OP with regard to the claim of the complainant, the complainant came to Bangalore and approached the OP, and enquired the staff in the office they directed him to approach the customer service centre situated at Kasturi Nagar, Bangalore, the complainant contacted the service centre and they asked the complainant to come after one week and again after one week, he approached the OP at their customer service centre and they told that the application of the complainant came to be rejected, and the OP has given letter dated 19-9-2007 in this regard, the OP has rejected the claim of the complainant by observing that the loss sustained by the complainant is of cheating in nature as the vehicle was taken away by the driver who being the employee of the complainant and also the loss does not fall under the purview of theft. The complainant has noticed after returning back to his village, the PLD bank, Gudibande branch have issued phamlets stating that, his mortgaged property as well as his movables properties in his house will be seized and auctioned in an open auction to recover their dues. The worst situation has arisen on account of negligent and irresponsible attitude of the OP, the grounds on which the claim application is rejected by the OP is illegal, improper and not sustainable under the law. The complainant has suffered mentally, physically and monetarily. So, the complainant is entitled for the insured amount and also damages for his suffering and the OP is liable to compensate the suffering of the complainant because of their negligence and deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.
8. The said evidence of the complainant is strictly in accordance with the averments of the complaint. Let us have a look at the relevant documents of the complainant to know whether the oral testimony of the complainant is supported by the documentary evidence or not. The document no.1 of the complainant’s list dated 8-12-2011 is the letter given by the OP in the name of the complainant dated 19-9-2007 informing that, the vehicle was taken by the complainant’s employee with consent of the complainant and loss does not fall under the purview of theft, so they are not unable to consider the claim of the complainant. The document no.2 is the original RC books of the tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-40-T-5742 and trailer bearing Reg. no.KA-40-T-5743 which is standing in the name of the complainant. The document no.3 is the copy of cover note issued by the OP, wherein it is stated that, the total sum insured was of Rs.5,31,443=00, premium was of Rs.7,959=00, date of issue of cover note was on 23-2-2006, and date of expiry of insurance was on 22-2-2007 midnight. The document no.4 is the copy FIR which was registered on the complaint of the complainant’s son dated 24-9-2006 bearing FIR no.108, wherein it is stated that, missing person and property i.e. Narasimhamurthy who being the driver of the tractor bearing Reg. no.KA-40-T-5742 with trailer from 19-9-2006, it is worthy to be noted from the FIR, that the said FIR contained the copy of the complaint of the complainant’s son, stating that on 19-9-2006 at 6.30 PM the complainant’s driver by name Narasimhamurthy went away with tractor and trailer with consent of the complainant’s Aunt Smt.Padvamathamma, but the driver did not turn up and inspite of searching around the driver and tractor were not traced, so the complaint came to be filed on 24-9-2006 to trace the driver, tractor and trailer, the said complaint filed by the complainant’s son is missing complaint, and in the complaint no provision of them under section 379 or 380 of IPC is mentioned particularly. The next document is notice dated 9-3-2010 and final report issued by the police informing that the Tractor and trailer and the driver were not traced during the investigation. The document no.9 is the copy of notice issued by the PLD bank in the name of the complainant for seizing the movable property of the complainant. The document no.10 is the copy of notice issued by the PLD bank by fixing auction of the mortgaged property.
9. So, on making careful scrutiny of documents of the complainant, specifically, dated 24-9-2006, it is vivid and clear that, on 19-9-2006 the driver of the complainant took away the tractor and trailer with consent of family members of the complainant, and investigation was started, and as per the report of the police, the tractor and driver were not traced, but it is pertinent to note that, the complainant filed a missing complaint on 24-9-2006 before the police without giving any explanation for filing the complaint late, so also the complainant did not take any step to intimate the insurer about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident. There is an in ordinate delay in intimating the alleged theft of the vehicle both before the police and insurer by son of the complainant and insured as per the condition of the policy. The insurer is require to intimate the same immediately after upon happening of any event. But the complainant has failed to comply the condition of the policy by intimating the insurer immediately after the incident. There is a latches on the part of the complainant in not intimating the police and insurer immediately after alleged theft of the vehicle. The act of the complainant in not informing the police and insurer of the vehicle immediately after the alleged incident of the theft is contrary to the terms of the policy, and the same stated to be fatal blow to the case of the complainant. Besides the definition of the theft is stated in section 378 of IPC, if we go through the definition of the theft as defined under section 378 of IPC and the averments of the complaint filed before the police with regard to taking away of the vehicle by the driver of the complainant with due consent of the complainant’s aunt on 19-9-2006, on the back ground of filing of the complaint to the police and intimating the insurer late immediately after the alleged incident of theft, it is made manifest that, the averments of the complaint in relation to taking away of the vehicle by employee of the complainant with due consent of the complainant on the fateful day do not fit in within the definition of the theft as defined under section 378 of IPC, and accordingly, the OP has scrutinized the claim of the complainant carefully and rejected the claim of the complainant rightly. So, we do not find any fault on the part of the OP in rejecting the claim of the complainant. At this stage, we would like to quote the some of citations quoted by the complainant counsel as under:
“2009 (1) CPR 26 (NC)
(The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd –vs- Parvesh Chandra Chadha)
Consumer-Protection Act, 1986-Section 12 and 17 – Insurance claim-Car got insured from 17-1-1995 to 16-1-1996 was stolen between 18th -20th January 1995 – Claim repudiated on ground of violation of condition no.1 of policy-District forum allowed complaint and directed Insurance Company to settle claim on non-standard basis at 75% of sum insured – State Commission up held the order-Revision –Policy condition no.1 provided that insurance company was to be informed of theft in writing immediately after occurrence of theft-Development officer of insurance company had issued cover note on 17-1-1995 but premium was deposited with insurance company on 18-1-1995- No specific plea taken by insurance Co. that policy was obtained by playing fraud-District forum found there was delay of 4 months in informing of theft of car by respondent to insurance company and accordingly claim was directed to be settled on non standard basis-No reasons or ground to interfere”
“Supreme Court of India
National Insurance Co. Ltd, -vs- Nitin Khandelwal
(Civil appeal no.3409 of 2008 – decided on 8-5-2008)
Head note:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2 (1) (g) and 21 (b) – Deficiency in service – Insurance policy – Respondent purchased vehicle- He had sent his vehicle to trail his children from Jaipur-Some unknown people stopped the vehicle, tied up driver and dumped him on way and snacked away vehicle – Insurance claim rejected by appellant- District Forum holding that respondent violated the terms and conditions of policy, company justified in rejecting claim-State commission setting aside judgment of district forum, allowed claim-National commission affirmed the judgment of State Commission – Legality of Held in case of theft of vehicle nature and use of vehicle cannot be looked into and insurance company cannot repudiated the claim on that basis – Judgment of National Commission affirmed”.
“(2012) CPJ 377 (NC)
National Insurance Co. Ltd –vs- Hardeep Pal Singh and Anr.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 2 (1) (g), 14 (1) (d), 21 (b) –Insurance - Theft of vehicle – breach of policy conditions – Repudiated on ground that vehicle registered as private vehicle was used by respondent as Taxi-Complaint filed – Allowed – Appeal before State commission –Dismissed-Hence Revision – Where vehicle has been stolen or snatched, breach of condition is not germane and insurance company is liable to indemnify owner of vehicle who has obtained comprehensive policy for loss caused to him – Impugned order upheld”.
“I (1994) CPJ 196 (NC)
The oriental Insurance co. Ltd, -vs- Rohit Kumar Gupta and ors.
Consumer Protection Act 1986 – Section 14 (1) (d) – “Insurance” – “Car” – “Compensation” _ complainant had insured his car including risk of theft with an insurance Co. – Driver disappeared with the car – claim lodged – Insurance co. repudiated the claim – Whether it is a case of theft and covers the risk?.
Held: Before this commission also the appellant reiterated its plea that the instance car cannot be regarded as one of loss of the car by theft and hence the insurance company is not liable for the claim as per the terms of the policy.
We wee no force at all in this contention. What would constitute the offence of theft is to be seen from the language used in the provisions of section clearly and directly covers the contingency which has occurred in the present case, namely the person who had been entrusted with an article or an item of goods dishonestly running away with the said article. Such being the legal position, we are of opinion that the insurance company should not have adopted such an attitude at all, but should have paid up the money covered by the insurance policy to the respondent”.
I (2000) CPJ 197
Oriental insurance Co. Ltd, -vs- Mahavir Singh and Anr.
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Appeal – Insurance returned – Claim not settled- Contention, delay in filing FIR, not acceptable- Driver a regular employee- Normal on part of employer to wait for his return for some days- Insurance company liable to pay the amount along with interest.
Held: We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On a perusal of the order, being impugned in the present proceedings, it is apparent that the findings of the learned District forum inter alia are based on a decision of the National Commission in case Bharat Singh v. Oriental insurance Co. Ltd, reported as II (1991) CPJ 700. As regards nine days delay in lodging the first information report with the policy it has been held by the district forum that since the driver Bansidhar was a regular employee with the respondent, it was normal on the part of said Shri Mahavir Singh to wait for the return of the driver for some days and when said Shri Bansidhar did not return with the truck, the respondent lodged a report with the police. In our opinion, in the given facts, the order passed by the learned district forum suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this commission in exercise of its appellant powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal”.
“II (1991) CPJ 6
Vinod Kumar Mathurbhai Patel –vs- United India Insurance Company
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 14 (1) (d) – Insurance Claim – Complainant purchased a Truck after obtaining loan from a Bank payable by installments spread over a period of three years- Got it insured under the comprehensive policy covering risk upto rupees two lakhs- Met an accident – Insurance Co. on inspection treated the truck as total loss took possession after one year thereof remitted Rs.1,34,500=00 to Bank directly by insurance co. as full and final settlement of claim on account of under delay, the complainant had to pay more interest- Hence complaint – Insurance Co. was directed to pay Rs.65,000=00 along with 18% interest as well as 18% interest on Rs.1,34,500=00 from the date of accident till the date of payment and Bank & Rs.1,000=00 as cost of complaint”.
10. We are in total agreement with guidelines of the said citations. On perusal of the present case on hand, on the back ground of the said decisions, the complainant of the present case on hand has lodged missing complaint on 24-9-2006, even though the incident had taken place on 19-9-2006 without explanation the delay caused in filing the complaint. The case was registered as missing complaint, and not as theft of the vehicle by the driver of the complainant. In the complaint filed before the police, it is specifically stated by the complainant who being the son of the complainant that, the driver of the tractor, took the vehicle with consent of the complainant son’s Aunt on 19-9-2006 carrying wood and cement, but he did not turn up, they made search, but they did not trace the driver and the vehicle. The definition of the theft under section 378 of IPC and the averments of the complaint dated 24-9-2006 filed by the complainant’s son before the police do not delay each other, so as to attract the intergradient of the theft. So we are of the opinion that, the fact of the above citations and the facts and circumstance of the present case on hand are on different footing. So the said citations do not come to the rescue of the complainant. The OP has stated both in the version and evidence of the employee of the OP, that the complaint of the complainant filed before the police was a missing complaint of driver and vehicle, and the driver of the vehicle took away the vehicle with due consent of the complainant and there is a delay in lodging the police complaint and intimating the insurer about the alleged theft, and the complainant acted contrary to the condition. The said defence of the OP is corroborated by the terms and conditions of the policy, and the averments of the police complaint filed by the son of the complainant. So viewing the case of the complainant, on the back ground of the material evidence placed before the forum, it is made abundantly clear that, the complainant who comes to the forum seeking relief has miserably failed to prove with clear cogent and consistent documentary evidence, that he is entitled for insured amount and also for damages, and the Ops were negligent and there is deficiency on the part of the OP, so he is liable to be compensated by the Ops, and as such, we answer this point in a negative.
11. In view of the negative findings on point no.1, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the complaint. So, we answer this point in a negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
The complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed. So, under the circumstance, parties shall bear their own cost.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this the 23rd day of May 2012.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
