THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF JUNE 2021
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 1245/2015
Srinivas A S/o Anjanappa
Aged about 28 years,
R/at No.29, 5th Main Road,
Tata Silk Farm,
Thyagarajanagar,
Bangalore-560 028.
…….Appellant/s.
(By Shri/Smt K.H.Pradeep Kumar, Adv.,)
-Versus-
The Manager,
The New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,
No.2B Unity Building Annexe
P.Kalinga Rao Road,
(Mission Road)
Bangalore – 560 027.
……….. Respondent/s
(By Shri/Smt V.S.M.Adv.,)
:ORDERS:
BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR - JUDICIAL MEMBER
The complainant preferred this appeal against the order dated:26/11/2015 passed by the Urban IV Additional District Commission in C.C.No.2577/2013.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
He is the owner of the two wheeler vehicle bearing No.KA-05-HW-0895 and insured with Opposite Party/company which is valid from 19/10/2012 to 18/10/2013. Such being the case, on 21.01.2013 at about 8.05 PM he is about to go to his relative house, he parked the vehicle in front of that house and forgot to take helmet, when he came to collect the helmet, the vehicle was not there where he parked and it was stolen by unknown persons. He immediately searched nearby surrounding till 11.30 PM, but he could not trace out the vehicle. At the time of parking the vehicle, he forgot to lock the vehicle, due to which the vehicle was stolen. Immediately he gave a complaint to Thayagaraja Nagar Police Station and police have registered a crime case in Crime No.12/2013. The complainant had wrongly gave a complaint stating that the key was left with the vehicle at the time of parking instead of forgot to lock the handle of the vehicle. Subsequently the police have filed a “C” report before the Magistrate Court. On 06.02.2013 he gave information to the Opposite Party/Company with respect to the theft of the vehicle through ‘e’ mail and also submitted “C” report in order the claim compensation by virtue of the policy. After receipt of the claim, the Opposite Party has repudiated the claim stating that there is negligence on the part of the complainant, for which the complainant filed a complaint before District Commission and after the trial, the District Commission dismissed the complaint without any valid reasons. Hence, this appeal.
3. Heard arguments from both sides.
4. On going through the memorandum of appeal and certified copy of the order produced by the complainant there is no dispute that the vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party which in force, theft of the vehicle was taken place on 21.01.2013 at about 8.05 PM when he parked the vehicle in front of his relative house, which was stolen as because it was not locked. The complainant forgot to take out the helmet and when he remembered to take the helmet, he came outside and found that it was stolen. The complainant gave a police complaint stating that the vehicle key was left in the vehicle. Subsequently during the course of arguments he says that it was mentioned by oversight that the key was left in the vehicle instead forgot to lock the handle, for which the Opposite Party have rejected the claim and prays to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission which dismissed the complaint on this ground.
5. We are of the opinion that there is no any exceptions to the negligence on the part of the complainant who either to forgot to lock the vehicle or left the key in the vehicle both are one and the same which means a negligence on the part of the complainant. We are of the further opinion that the complainant voluntarily invited the strangers to steal the vehicle. The theft of the vehicle is barely due to the negligence on the part of the complainant. Even in the Consumer Protection Act, there is no any exception for an act done by negligence. Hence, the District Commission rightly appreciated the repudiation made by the Opposite Party and dismissed the complaint. We found there is no any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the District Commission. Hence, the appeal fails. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
The impugned order dated:26/11/2015 passed by the Bangalore Urban IV Additional District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.2577/2013 is hereby confirmed.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
