Date of Filing : 15.11.2010
Date of Order : 26.07.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 020
Dated 26th JULY 2011
PRESENT
Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A., LL.B. (SPL) …. President
Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A., LL.B. …. Member
COMPLAINT NO. 2582/2010
Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sahani,
S/o. Suresh Sahani, Aged about 27 years,
R/at No. 7, 11th Cross, 8th Main,
Panchasheela Nagar, Nagarabhavi,
Bangalore – 560 072. ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No. 44/45, 4th Floor,
Leo Shopping Complex,
Residency Road Cross,
Bangalore – 560 025.
By its Deputy Manager.
2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No. 70/5, Suvarna Towers,
I Floor, Near Vijayanagar, BDA Complex,
Govindaraja Nagara, Vijayanagar,
Bangalore – 560 040.
By its Branch Manager. …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
(By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale)
This Complaint is filed by the Complainant u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Brief facts of the case are that Complainant is the registered owner of Bajaj Discover Motor Cycle bearing Regn. No. KA-02/HA-1804. The above vehicle was insured with the OP bearing Policy No. 421900/31/2010/9644 for Rs.34,944/- for the period from 26.11.2009 to 25.11.2010. The said vehicle was stolen on 04.02.2010 at about 2.30 PM to 2.45 PM when it was parked near the house where he went on business purpose. The fact of theft was informed to OP orally on the same day. Complainant lodged a Complaint with the Hanumanthanagara Police Station with regard to theft of the vehicle as informed by the OP. Police have not immediately registered the case and told that they would trace the vehicle within few days. Since the vehicle was not traced, on demand of the Complainant, Police have registered the Complaint u/s. 379 of CPC. Copy of FIR has been produced. Thereafter, Complainant made a claim with the OP. But, OP rejected the claim on the ground that the fact of theft was not informed to the OP within 48 hours. Even though the Complainant has informed the fact of theft of vehicle to OP, OP rejected the claim. Complainant caused legal notice to the OP, but it went in vain. Hence, he filed the Complaint seeking direction to the OP to pay Rs.34,944/- along with interest & cost.
2. OP filed defence version stating that issue of policy is admitted. Complainant orally informed the theft of the vehicle is false. Policy is subject to terms & conditions. Mere fact that claim has been repudiated does not constitute any deficiency of service. In cases of theft, immediate intimation to police is required. Claim has been repudiated as per the terms of the Policy. Therefore, OP prayed to dismiss the Complaint.
3. Both parties have filed their affidavit evidence. Arguments are heard.
4. Points for consideration are as under:
(1) Whether the Complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of OP?
(2) Whether the repudiation by the OP is justified?
(3) Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief ?
(4) What order & relief ?
5. It is admitted case of the parties that Complainant has insured his vehicle with the OP. Motor Insurance Certificate-cum-Policy is produced. The period of insurance was from 26.11.2009 to 25.11.2010. The total value covered under the Policy is Rs.34,944/-. As regards Policy is concerned, there is no dispute. Complainant submitted that Motor Cycle was stolen on 04.02.1010 when he had parked near the house when he had gone to business. Complainant specifically submitted that on the same day he informed orally to the Branch Office of OP2 of the theft of the vehicle. The officials of the OP told him to lodge Complaint and produce necessary FIR copy. Thereafter, Complainant went to Hanumanthanagar Police Station, Bangalore to lodge a Complaint and informed about the theft of vehicle. It is the case of the Complainant that Police instead of registering the case immediately on the same day, they assured him that they would trace the vehicle within few days and give the information, otherwise they would register the Complaint. Hence, Complainant waited with patience, but he did not get the information from the Police. Once again he went to Police Station and requested to register the Complaint and Police have registered the Complaint on 13.02.2010 u/s. 379 of CPC. Complainant has produced copy of FIR. The Complainant informed the matter to the OP about registering of the case and requested to settle the claim. But, OP repudiated the claim on the ground that theft has not been reported to the Branch Office within 48 hours. Therefore, Complainant has filed the present Complaint. It is common knowledge that the Police do not register the case immediately. They tell the parties to wait for searching of the vehicle. On the words of Police, Complainant waited for 7 days and when the vehicle was not found, he again went to Police Station and requested to register a case. On 13.02.2010 Police registered a case and issued FIR. Therefore, there is delay of 9 days in registering the case. But, as regards informing the Police by the Complainant about the theft, there is no delay.
6. Complainant has stated in his affidavit that he had also informed the OP Company about the theft of the vehicle on the same day and officials of the OP told the Complainant to file police complaint and produce FIR. Therefore, there is no delay in informing the theft of the vehicle to the OP. There may be some technical delay in registering the case. But, there is no factual delay in informing the theft of the vehicle to the police as well as OP Company. So, under these circumstances, the claim of the Complainant could have been settled by the OP since the vehicle has not been traced and Police submitted ‘C’ Report. The vehicle has been insured with the OP and the repudiation of the claim in this case is not justified. OP has no other defence except delay in informing them. This delay is not an intentional one. On the other hand, Complainant has stated on oath that he had informed the theft of the vehicle to the OP Company on the date of theft itself. This statement can be taken as true & correct. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was delay in informing the OP. So, taking into all the facts & circumstances of the case, it is a fit case to allow. The repudiation of the claim is not justified. The repudiation of genuine claim by the OP amounts to deficiency of service. Therefore, Complaint deserves to be allowed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Complaint is allowed. OP is directed to pay Rs.34,944/- 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 shall carry interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of Order till the date of payment / realization.
Send copy of this Order to both the parties free of cost immediately.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 26th day of July 2011.
Order accordingly
PRESIDENT
I concur the above findings
MEMBER
SSS
