BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.200/2013

DATED ON THIS THE 26^th September 2015

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri Devakumar.M.C.

Member

1.     The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986, against the opposite party, seeking a direction to settle the claim for a sum of `8,50,000/- and compensation for the loss and sought for other reliefs.
2.     The complainant’s vehicle was stolen on 05.03.2009, a complaint has been lodged with the jurisdictional police on 06.03.2009.  Complainant submits that the information relating to theft was conveyed to the opposite party immediately, over the telephone.  On 23.04.2012, the complainant has submitted all the documents to opposite party and insurance was claimed under policy.  The opposite party repudiated the insurance claims vide letter dated 07.06.2012.  Hence, this complaint alleging deficiency in service.
3.     Opposite party admitted the insurance of the vehicle bearing No.KA-09-7058 with it and alleges that the theft of the vehicle was not informed by complainant immediately.  It is contended that on 16.03.2009, i.e., 11 days after the theft of the vehicle, was informed to it.  Thereby alleges that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  As such the claims have been rightly repudiated.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service.
4.     Parties have filed the affidavits and produced documents and written arguments.  On perusal of the documents and hearing the arguments, matter posted for orders.
5.     The following points arises for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant proves that the information relating to theft of the vehicle has been given to opposite party immediately, thereby proves the deficiency in service and that he is entitled to the relief sought?
2. What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- The complainant’s tipper lorry bearing No.KA-09-A-7058 has been insured with the opposite party company.  The said vehicle has been stolen on 05.03.2009 and a complaint has been lodged with the jurisdictional police on 06.03.2009.  The complainant informed the facts to the opposite party immediately after completion of the formalities with the police.  The complainant got submitted all the relevant documents to the opposite party on 23.04.2012 and insurance amount under policy was claimed.  The opposite party vide letter dated 07.06.2012, informed the complainant, regarding repudiation of the claim.  Legal notice has been issued on 23.11.2012 for settlement of claims has not been complied by opposite party.  As such, alleging the deficiency in service filed this complaint seeking compensation and other reliefs.
8.    The opposite party admitted the insurance of the tipper lorry bearing No.KA-09-A-7058.  The opposite party alleged that, information regarding the theft of the vehicle has not been communicated to it immediately.  Further, the intimation was delivered on 16.03.2009, i.e. after the lapse of 11 days of the alleged theft of the vehicle.  Thereby, the complainant had violated the terms and conditions as laid down in the insurance policy and denied the intimation, said to have been given over the telephone immediately after the theft of the vehicle.  The opposite party admitted the receipt of notice dated 23.11.2012 and the reply to the said notice on 14.12.2012.  It is submitted that the driver of the said lorry was handed over the key of the said lorry to a stranger by name Basavaraju and the lorry was under his custody.  Thereby the opposite party alleges the total negligence on the part of the complainant.  Thus, contended that it has rightly repudiated the claim for violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.  As such, contended it is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.
9.    The complainant failed to prove that, the information relating to the alleged theft of the lorry was communicated to the opposite party over the telephone immediately.  Further, the complainant had informed the opposite party, after the lapse of 11 days of the alleged theft of the lorry, i.e. on 16.03.2009.  The complainant ought to have informed the opposite party within 48 hours of the occurrence of the alleged theft of the lorry as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The decisions relayed upon by the complainant does not support the case on hand.  Based on decision rendered in I (2015) CPJ 74 (NC) by the Hon’ble National Commission, the repudiation of the claim is justified.  Further, the keys of the said lorry was in the custody of one Basavaraju, who is no way connected to the insurance contract.  As such, there is gross negligence on the part of the complainant is proved.  Hence, the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.  Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
10. Point No.2:- In view of the above discussion, we pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.