O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> The brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the Ops are, that he was the owner of a motor cycle insured it with Ops which was in effect from 30/01/2009 till the midnight of 28/01/2010. On 16/09/2009 he had parked his motor bike in front of State Bank of Mysore near old bus stop Devenahalli. After finishing his work he returned back and found his motor bike was stolen. He made enquiries at Devanahalli town and village but could not trace it. Then he fell ill from 16/09/2009 till 06/10/2009 and was admitted to Suraksha Health Centre, Devanahalli. After discharge from the Health Centre he made a complaint to the concerned Police on 06/10/2009 and police have also issued C-Final report but his claim made to the Op for paying insurance amount has been rejected by the Ops vide their endorsement dated 24/01/2010 on the ground that there had been delay of 23 days and stated despite the fact that he was hospitalized for considerable time, the Ops have refused to honour his claim and therefore, has prayed for a direction to Ops to pay insurance claim of Rs.65,000/- and to award cost.<br /> <br /> 2. Ops have filed their version without disputing the policy issued and the validity period of the policy but contended that they are not liable to compensate insured as the report of theft had not been given to them within 48 hours after the occurrence. In the instance case, the complainant informed the police regarding theft after 23 days and also informed them after so many delay and complainant has not properly explained for such delay. As such denying their liability have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the Deputy Manager of Ops have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with the complaint has filed insurance policy, medical certificate with a copy of FIR charge sheet and C-Final report filed by the police. Ops have not produced any documents. We have heard the counsel for both parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the Ops have caused deficiency in their service by repudiating his claim made for payment of insurance amount?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No.1 : In the negative<br /> Point No.2 : See the final order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Answer on point No.1: As seen from the contentions of the parties, we do not find any dispute with regard to the ownership of the motor bike, theft of motor bike and the claim made by the complainant with Ops for payment of the insurance amount, there is no need for us to go in detail of those facts as such we shall confine ourselves to examine the justification of the Ops in repudiating the claim of the complainant for payment of insurance amount.<br /> <br /> 7. Ops have repudiated the claim of the complainant through their letter dated 21/04/2010 on the ground that theft report was not given to them by the complainant within 48 hours of theft and that intimation was received after 23 days of its occurrence. The complainant in order to explain this delay in the complaint and also in the affidavit evidence has stated as if after theft of his motor bike on 16/09/2009 he was suffering from illness therefore, immediately he got admitted to Suraksha Health Centre at Devanahalli and was under treatment from 16/09/2009 to 06/10/2009 and therefore stated after discharge from the health centre he immediately made a complaint to the police on 06/09/2010. The complainant has also admitted that intimation to the Ops regarding theft of bike was given after expiry of 23 days after theft of the motor bike. The complainant in support of his hospitalization for ill heath has produced a medical certificate in which it is stated that this complainant was suffering from viral fever was under treatment of Doctor by name Dr. Manjunath and the complainant was advised rest from 16/09/2009 to 06/10/2009. In this certificate, there is no mentioning of this complainant having had been admitted as inpatient and he was in capacitated or advised strictly not to move about and that prevented him from filing a complaint to the police and sending intimation to the Ops. Therefore, the claim of the complainant that he was hospitalized for all those days and was discharged on 06/10/2009 is bundle of false and cannot be believed. What the medical certificate reveal is that this complainant was treated in the clinic and was advised rest in between two dates mentioned in that certificate and it do not further say that the complainant was advised absolute bed rest or he was in patient. The alleged ailment of the complainant in our view was not an impediment for him to give police complaint and also send message to the insurance company. Even according to the complainant, he was in the hospital in Devanahalli town itself and nothing prevented him from complying the requirement of the conditions of the policy. Thus the explanation given by the complainant for condoning delay cannot be believed and is unacceptable.<br /> <br /> 8. On perusal of the contents of the insurance policy produced by the complainant himself there is a condition which says that claim for theft of vehicle not payable, if theft is not reported to the company within 48 hours of its occurrence. The complainant has not disputed this condition of the policy. As the reasons given by him for the delay is held is held as unacceptable the complainant therefore has to be held to have contravened the condition of the policy. The complainant, had he filed police complaint and reported the matter to the Ops, the police and the Ops could have taken immediate steps to trace the bike and to nab the offender. In such an event, Ops would not have suffered any financial loss. The Ops having their independent investigating agency could have taken action in that regard but is denied of that opportunity to make their efforts from their end. This omission of the complainant is deprived of their right of taking steps to trace the vehicle and when the basic condition is violated by the complainant, in our view he is not entitled for the relief. As such, the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the Ops cannot be held as deficient and therefore, we answer point No.1 in the negative and propose to dismiss the complaint. With the result, we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 13th September 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />