Date of Filing : 16.03.2011
Date of Order : 30.11.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 020
Dated 30th day of November 2011
PRESENT
Sri. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO …. President
Sri. BALAKRISHNA V. MASALI, B.A., LL.B.(SPL) …. Member
COMPLAINT NO. 536/2011
Sri.R.Mahadev Gowda,
S/o.Ramachandra Gowda,
Aged about 47 years,
No.177, 1st Main, 12th A Cross,
West of Chord Road,
2nd Stage, Mahalakshmipuram,
Bangalore 560 086.
(By Advocate M/s V & V Law Office) ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
Regional Office at No.2-B,
Unity Building Annex,
P.Kalinga Rao Road,
(Mission Road),
Bangalore 560 027.
(By Advocate V.Subramani)
2. The Divisional Manager,
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Regional Office at No.2-B,
Unity Building Annex,
P.Kalinga Rao Road,
(Mission Road),
Bangalore 560 027. ….Opposite Parties
ORDER
(By the President Sri. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO)
The brief antecedents that led to be filing of the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act Seeking direction to the OP to pay compensation are necessary.
1. The complainant has insured his Toyota quails GST D6 Car No. KA-02-P-2860 with the OP and insurance was valid between 05.02.2009 and 04.02.2010. The said vehicle has been stolen on 17.12.2009 a complaint was registered with the jurisdiction police station who issued ‘C’ report on 18.12.2009. The complainant laid claim with the OP who repudiated it on 22.02.2011. hence the complaint.
2. In brief the version of the OP are:
The ownership, insurance, theft, laying the claim, its repudiation are admitted. Repudiation is in accordance with law.
3. To substantiate their respective cases the parties have filed their respective affidavits and documents. Heard the arguments.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are
A) Whether there is deficiency in service ?
B) What order ?
5. Our answers are:
A) Negative
B) As per the detailed order for the following
REASONS
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavit and documents on record it is an admitted fact that the complainant has insured his vehicle with the OP, which was stolen on 16.12.2009, regarding which the complainant had made the claim before the OP on 03.12.2010 that is after a lapse of 352 days, hence the OP repudiated it on 22.02.2011. In this regard in a case between New india assurance company Ltd., and R.Prakash in R.P.No.1635/2007 on 13.04.2011 following the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in oriental insurance co.ltd., v/s Parvesh chandan Gedda in civil appeal no.6739/2010 decided on 17.08.2010, it is held by National Commission that if there is delay in laying the claim before the insurer, more than 48 hours regarding the theft or otherwise the repudiation cannot be said to be deficiency in service. Because of the delay in laying the claim the OP repudiated. There is no deficiency therein hence we hold the above points and pass the following
ORDER
1. Complaint is dismissed.
2. Return the extra sets to the concerned parties as under regulation 20(3) of the consumer Protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send copy of this Order to both the parties free of cost immediately.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30th day of November 2011.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
