Date  : 09.05.2013

Per Shri.S.M.Shembole Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

1.       This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 22.3.2013 dismissing consumer complaint No.111/2011 by Dist.Forum Beed.

2.       We heard Shri.Ashok Pawase learned counsel appearing for appellant and perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copies of complaint and other documents including copy of insurance policy.   Considering the facts of the case, we have decided to dispose of this appeal at the stage of hearing before admission.

3.       Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-

         Appellant/complainant was owner of motor-cycle bearing registration No.MH-23/V-3308. It was insured with respondent/opponent-Insurance Company(for the sake of brevity the appellant is hereinafter referred as ’complainant’ and respondent as ’opponent-Insurance Company’). According to the complainant his motor-cycle is stolen away on 14.2.2010 and thereafter he gave complaint to the Police Station, Kada, Dist.Beed.  He made search for the motor-cycle but he could not find motor-cycle.  Therefore, on 25.2.2010 he orally gave intimation to the opponent-Insurance Company.  Thereafter, on 2.8.2010 he submitted insurance claim with the opponent-Insurance Company.  However, Opponent-Insurance Company repudiated his claim on the ground that intimation about theft was not given immediately.  Accordingly, repudiation letter dated 22.5.2011 was issued. Therefore complainant has filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent-Insurance Company. 

4.       Opponent-Insurance Company vide its written version resisted the complaint interalia contending that the claim was rightly repudiated as no intimation about theft of motor-cycle was given immediately.  It is denied that oral intimation was given by complainant on 25.2.2010.  It is submitted that intimation was given on 30.7.2010 only and therefore there was inordinate delay of more than 155 days. It is submitted to dismiss the complaint. 

5.       On hearing both sides and considering the evidence on record the District Forum dismissed the complaint  holding that there was inordinate delay of more than 155 days in giving intimation to the opponent-Insurance Company and therefore opponent-Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim.

6.       Feeling aggrieved that judgment and order the complainant has preferred this appeal.

7.       We heard Adv.Ashok Pawase learned counsel appearing for the complainant, perused the copy of impugned judgment and order and also other documents including copy of complaint, written version, repudiation letter and insurance policy. 

8.       It is submitted by Shri.Pawase learned counsel for the complainant that though the complainant has orally given intimation to the opponent-Insurance Company on 25.2.2010 the same is not considered and denied by Insurance Company with a malafide intention to reject the claim etc.  But we find no force in the submission of Mr.Pawase learned counsel for the complainant, because except such bare averment, there is no supporting evidence. Even affidavit of complainant to that effect is also not produced. Moreover no explanation is given as to why written intimation was not given to the opponent-Insurance Company immediately after alleged incident of theft of motor-cycle.  Therefore the opponent-Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim. Thus, District Forum considering all these facts rightly dismissed the complaint. We find no error and infirmity in the impugned judgment and order.  Hence no interference is warranted.

9.       In the result, appeal is being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed summarily.  Hence the following order.

                                                O   R    D    E    R

1.     Appeal is dismissed.

2.     No order to cost.

3.     Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.

Pronounced and dictated