Date of Filing: 16.07.2009<br /> Date of Order: 23.12.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2009<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1662 OF 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> Smt. Bhagyamma, <br /> No.1159, 12th Main,<br /> 5th Cross, Raghavendra Block,<br /> Srinagar, Bangalore-50. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,<br /> No.364/110th ‘B’Main,<br /> Srinivasa Mansion,<br /> Jayanagar III Block,<br /> Bangalore-560011. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for grant of Rs.43,000/- along with interest at 18% p.a and damages of Rs.5,000/-.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant is an employee of a private firm and had purchased Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.KA41/H 8295 in the year 2007. The said vehicle was hypothecated with the ICICI Bank, Hosur Road, Bommanahalli, Bangalore. The complainant had taken general insurance policy in respect of the said vehicle which covers theft also. On 28/09/2007 the complainant along with her relative had gone to Big Bazar at Jayanagar 9th Block. Vehicle was parked in front of the Big Bazar parking lot at around 12-00 PM. After returning back from the Big Bazar at 12-30 PM to take the vehicle the complainant was shocked to find that the vehicle was not there. Immediately the complainant made efforts to find the vehicle. In the mean while the complainant had informed to the opposite party company about the theft of the vehicle by telephone from the nearest public booth. The officer of the opposite party company received the phone call and advised the complainant to lodge complaint with the jurisdictional Police Station. Thereafter, the complainant approached Tilaknagar Police Station to lodge complaint. The Police Officer at the said Police Station had advised the complainant to make efforts to trace the vehicle in the surrounding area and if she does not succeed in trace the vehicle then complaint could be registered. The complainant made efforts to trace the missed vehicle she could not succeed in tracing the said vehicle. Finally the complainant has filed a written complaint to the Tilaknagar Police Station on 14/01/2008. Thereafter, the complainant had written a letter to the opposite party on 23/01/2009 requesting to release the insurance compensation for the said vehicle which comes under the claim of theft. On 24/01/2009 the complainant had also wrote letter to the ICICI Bank informing that she is unable to pay further installments of loan amount since the vehicle was stolen and she is requesting them to claim the compensation money from the opposite party insurance company and adjust the same towards the balance of loan amount. The complainant had further stated that she had reported the theft of the vehicle to the opposite party company over telephone on 28/09/2007 followed by the letter dated 24/01/2009. The opposite party company wrote to the complainant on 10/02/2009 stating that her claim could not be entertained as she failed to notify the theft within 48 hours as required by the terms of the company. Thereafter, the complainant has issued a legal notice to the opposite party company on 07/03/2009 calling upon them to reconsider their decision of repudiation and to honour her claim. The opposite party company has not responded to the said notice of the complainant. <br /> <br /> 2. The notice was issued to the opposite party and the same was served and the opposite party represented though an Advocate and filed the version stating that the complainant is the register owner of the Motor Cycle bearing No.KA-41-H-8295 and the said vehicle was insured with the opposite party company and it covered during the period from 10/02/2007 to 09/02/2008. The policy was issued to the complainant subject to various terms and conditions, exceptions and limitations and the legal liability of the insurer is covered by the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and the terms and conditions of the insurance policy issued by the opposite party. The opposite party has stated that this complaint is untenable in law and facts for the following reasons:-<br /> a) The time gap between the date of incident (28/09/2007) and date of FIR (14/01/2008) suggested that it is a false case. Nextly the time of gap of date of FIR (14/01/2008) and date of intimation to the insurer (23/01/2009) is a nearly an year which would enable the Hon’ble Forum to conclude that there is a concusses or a cooked up a story around the alleged incidents.<br /> b) As per the condition of the policy “Claim for theft of vehicle not payable if theft not reported to Company within 48 hours of its occurrence”. This condition is clearly violated by the complainant. As per the complainant she is intimated to the company on phone immediately after the incident. She is not having any problem to give a intimation to opposite party and near Police Station through writing on the next day of the incident.<br /> and therefore requested to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Perused the records along with documents. Heard the arguments of both the parties. <br /> 4. The point for consideration are:- <br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency <br /> of service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether the repudiation of the claim by the opposite party is justified?<br /> <br /> 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for? <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. In this case, the complainant has lost the vehicle on 28/09/2007 and immediately she was required to file a complaint with the concerned Police Station and also she was required to inform to the opposite party. But the complainant has not filed any complaint with the jurisdictional Police Station immediately instead she filed the complaint on 14/01/2008. There is a delay of more than three months. <br /> <br /> 6. The complainant has also stated that she had informed the opposite party over phone from a public booth on the date of theft, but she gave a written intimation only on 23/01/2009 which is an abnormal delay. We are unable to understand what prevented from filing a written complaint immediately. The insurance claim will be as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy and under the terms and conditions it is required that the complainant is required to file a Police Complaint and also to inform the opposite party within 48 hours of the incident, but the complainant has taken more than one year to intimate the incident to the opposite party. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that the complainant has not proved deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. As regards the point No.2, the opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainant only on the ground that the complainant has not filed the complaint to the jurisdictional Police Station and also to the opposite party within 48 hours of the incident which is a requirement under the conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, here also we are of the opinion that the opposite party has justified in repudiating the claim put up by the complainant. Coming to the point No.3 we found that the complainant even though she has lost the vehicle on 28/09/2007 she has not filed the complaint with the jurisdictional Police Station till 14/01/2008. She took something more than three months after the incident to file a complaint to the Police Station. Thereafter, as required under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy she was required to inform the opposite party regarding the incident within 48 hours of its occurrence, but here she took more than one year to intimate the opposite party and also to submit her claim which is an abnormal delay. The law helps those who are vigilant. In this case the complainant is not vigilant and she took more than one year in informing to the opposite party. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to the relief as prayed for. For the reasons stated above, we proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 7. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. <br /> <br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> I concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER <br /> rhr. <br />