Date of Filing:18.02.2009<br /> Date of Order:24.04.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2009<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 425 OF 2009<br /> <br /> T. Gopalkrishna<br /> S/o. Late Thimmaiah<br /> 3/1, EAT Street, Gandhibazar<br /> Bangalore 560 004 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.<br /> By its Senior Branch Manager<br /> DBO 14, 19/1, I Floor, 3rd Cross<br /> Chikkannagarden, Shankarmutt Road<br /> Bangalore 560 004 Opposite Party<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.<br /> The facts of the case are that complainant is the owner of vehicle TVS Super XL model bearing No. KA 05 EM 6878 purchased on 11.04.2003 for Rs. 19,538/-. Vehicle was insured with the opposite party. It is the case of the complainant that on 22.04.2008 he had parked his vehicle in front of his house duly locked at 5.30 p.m. He came out of the house around 7.00 p.m. to go to his work place and noticed that vehicle was missing. Complainant made efforts to search the vehicle, but in vein. Thereafter he lodged police complaint with Basavanagudi police. FIR was filed. Police subsequently filed ‘C’ Report. Complainant made claim with the opposite party and claimed Rs. 10,000/-. Opposite party rejected the claim on the ground that he has not locked the vehicle, which is not correct. Thereafter, complainant got issued legal notice through advocate. In respect of notice once again the opposite party rejected the claim. Vehicle was insured with opposite party and insurance policy was inforce during the relevant period. It is the duty of the opposite party to make good loss suffered by the complainant as per the terms of the policy. Hence, the complaint. <br /> 2. Notice issued to opposite party through RPAD. The notice duly served. When the case was set for appearance of opposite party on 18.03.2009 the opposite party did not appear before this forum. Therefore, the opposite party was placed exparte. Opposite party even has not sent defence version by post. <br /> 3. The complainant has filed affidavit evidence and arguments of the learned advocate for the complainant heard. I have gone through the complaint and documents.<br /> 4. The complainant has produced copy of policy. The declared value of the vehicle is Rs. 10,000/-. The complainant has produced motor claim form. He has produced copy of complaint given to the police. The said police complaint has been registered in crime No. 73/08 under section 379 of Indian Penal Code. The complainant has produced first information report. The police after investigation submitted ‘C’ Report to the court. Copy of ‘C’ Report of police is also produced. The complainant has produced letter of the opposite party dated 05.12.2008. It is stated in the letter that vehicle was not locked at the time of the theft. Therefore, there was negligence on the part of complainant which is not covered under policy and claim intimation is also given to the office after one month. Therefore, the claim was repudiated. The complainant has produced copy of legal notice served to the opposite party. Complainant has produced another letter of opposite party dated 13.01.2009. In the said letter again opposite party stated that vehicle was not locked at the relevant point of time and therefore, claim was repudiated. The complainant in his affidavit has clearly stated that vehicle was duly locked and the theft occurred and the vehicle was parked outside of his house. The complainant clearly stated in the affidavit that the vehicle was locked. The sentence written in the complaint that ‘vehicle not locked’ was tampered and later on it was inserted. By looking to the copy of the complaint, it is clearly visible that ‘vehicle was not locked’ appears to be inserted later on. Therefore, the submission of the learned advocate for the complainant that there was manipulation or tampering of the complaint requires to be accepted. The only defence taken by the opposite party is that vehicle was not locked. Therefore, the opposite party liable to pay the claim amount. But in order to prove or establish the fact that the vehicle was not locked there is absolutely no evidence or any proof on behalf of the opposite party. Admittedly, opposite party has no evidence to prove that the vehicle was not locked by the complainant when the theft took place. Therefore, the affidavit evidence given by the complainant has not been challenged shall have to be accepted. There is no defence version on behalf of opposite party. The case made out by the complainant and affidavit filed by the complainant has gone unchallenged. There is nothing to disbelieve the case put up by the complainant. The opposite party even though served with notice by this forum has failed to appear and contest the matter for the best reasons known to them. It appears that opposite party has no defence to make. That is why it had chosen to remain absent. The facts and evidence stated by the complainant shall have to be accepted as true and correct since there is no contrary affidavit or defence version on behalf of the opposite party. Admittedly, the complainant had taken policy from the opposite party by paying premium amount and the declared value of the vehicle is Rs. 10,000/- under the policy. The opposite party is bound to pay the IDV amount of Rs. 10,000/-. The complainant has to surrender the original documents i.e. RC book of the vehicle to the opposite party after receipt of the claim amount from the opposite party. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, the documents and argument of the learned advocate for the complainant I am of the opinion that repudiation of the claim by the opposite party is unjustified and not proper. The Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interests of the consumers. The opposite party shall be directed to pay the IDV to the complainant. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 5. The Complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- Insured’s Declared Value (IDV) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order within 30 days, the above amount carries interest at 12% p.a. from the date of this order till payment / realization.<br /> 6. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs 1,000/- as costs of the present proceedings to the complainant.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />