Complaint filed on: 19-01-2010<br /> Disposed on: 19-07-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT <br /> CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 <br /> <br /> C.C.No.116/2010<br /> DATED THIS THE 19th JULY 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER<br /> <br /> SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Complainant: - <br /> Shiva Shankar.S,<br /> S/o. Sri.L.S.Shankaranarayana Rao,<br /> No.10C21 (Old) No.8,<br /> 10th cross, 5th Main, Srinidhi <br /> Layout, Konanakunte, <br /> Bangalore - 82 <br /> <br /> V/s<br /> Opposite party: - <br /> The Regional Manager, <br /> Oriental Insurance Company Limited,<br /> Regional office, <br /> LEO Shopping complex, 4th floor,<br /> Claim cell, 44/45, Residency<br /> Road cross, PB No.25123,<br /> Bangalore-25<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT. <br /> <br /> Grievance of the complainant against the opposite party [hereinafter called as OP for short) in brief is that, he is the RC owner of the motor bike as described in the complaint, was insured with the OP and had valid insurance policy with effect from 8-6-2009 to 7-6-2010. That his motor bike was stolen on 25-6-2009 at 9 am. On the next day, he gave a complaint to the concerned police reporting the theft of his motor bike. On 18-10-2009 Mysore Rural police station took the thief near his residence and informed him of tracing the thief and recovering of bike. Then he requested OP for early settlement of his claim but the OP through its letter dated 9-11-2009 told him to shift the bike to near by garage for repair and take estimation of the damage. But he did not choose to get his vehicle to his custody as it involve lot of procedure to be followed for getting the vehicle released from police station at Mysore and therefore blamed OP in not getting the vehicle released by themselves. He also wrote a letter to the OP to engage an advocate to move the matter with the court for release of the vehicle and to bring it to Bangalore. Thereafter to deliver to him the vehicle hastlefree from the court’s undertaking and stated that OP did not do so. Therefore attributing deficiency to OP has prayed for awarding Rs.41,086/- and penal damages <br /> <br /> 2. OP has appeared through his advocate and filed version admitting issue of insurance policy in favour of the complainant insuring his motor bike. This OP has also admitted receipt of intimation of theft and the claim of the complainant for settlement. But contended that the complainant despite knowing the whereabouts of the motorbike has failed and neglected to take custody and safeguard it. That he requested the complainant to take motorbike to a nearby garage and get estimation of repair done but has neglected and further requested to secure the vehicle to prevent further damage was not heeded. OP further contended that his liability is only according to the terms and conditions of the policy and stated that the complainant could have the under terms and conditions of policy availed facilities under policy for getting the value of the insured bike if it has resulted in total loss and claim damages after getting damages assessed and repaired. But the complainant without resorting to any such known procedure has neglected his bike and filed this complaint, therefore has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the power of attorney holder of the complainant and working deputy manager of OP have filed their affidavit evidence. The complainant alongwith the complaint has filed a copy of letter addressed to OP, copy of a letter of OP and copy of insurance policy. OP has produced copy of certain E-mail sent to the complainant. Counsel for the OP has filed written arguments. We have heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that OP has caused deficiency in his service in not paying damages arising out theft of his motorbike?<br /> 2. To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:<br /> 1. Answer Point No.1: In the negative <br /> 2. Answer Point No.2: To see the final order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Answer on Point No.1: From the rival contentions, we have referred brief above, we do not find any dispute with regard to the ownership of the vehicle and insurance coverage of that vehicle and theft of the vehicle as reported by the complainant. The complainant himself has admitted that after theft his vehicle on 25-6-2009 Mysore police took the accused who committed theft to him on 18-10-2009 and informed him to had recovered his stolen vehicle. The complaint after receipt of the information of recovery of his motor bike requested the OP to pay him insurance amount. The complainant has produced copies of E-mails, he had sent to OP and also reply sent by OP through E-mail. In these E-mails, we find that the complainant reporting to OP about Mysore police approaching him and reporting him recovery of the vehicle, he requested OP to advice him the course of next action to be taken. For which, the OP sent reply to the complainant telling him to contact nearest oriental office or policy issued office who will provide him necessary forms and further told him to submit the form duly filled. Then the OP further sent E-mail communication on 29-10-2009 stating that the vehicle is since traced with minor damages adviced the complainant to shift the vehicle to a near by garage and arrange for repair estimate and OP further told the complainant to approach their nearest office with the report of estimate for deputation of surveyor and stated once the vehicle gets repaired told to the complainant to pay the bills and submit the repair bills to their office for processing the claim. For which the complainant found to had sent an E-mail reply and told the OP that his vehicle was a brand new one from the showroom, maintained in good condition with regular service and hearing the current plight of his vehicle his is not interested, in taking delivery of the vehicle and requested the OP to settle his claim. For which the OP on 17-11-2009 sent a letter to the complainant reminding the complainant to their earlier E-mail and requested the complainant to take possession of the vehicle from the police authority and to submit documents to enable them to conduct final survey in case of there are any damages to the vehicle and told the complainant, on receipt of those documents and estimation of repairs, they will proceed further. But the complainant without meeting these requirements of OP has filed this complaint. <br /> <br /> 7. The complainant as found from the para no.6 of his complaint and also in affidavit evidence has stated that he was not willing to take risk of going to Mysore to engage service of an advocate and apply for release of the vehicle from the court custody and to abide by the conditions if any imposed by the court. On going through request made by OP, silence of the complainant in not meeting their request and expressions in para no.6 of the complaint and affidavit evidence make it clear that the complainant not taking pain for getting his vehicle released from the court and not willing to follow the conditions if any imposed by the court while releasing the vehicle has thrown the blame on the OP is not settling his claim. The complainant has made his intention clear that his claim is to be settled by paying value of the bike, without expecting any service from them. Such act of irresponsibility and action of the complainant do not help him to get the relief. <br /> <br /> 8. Whenever the vehicle insured with an insurance company suffered damage or lost for any reason as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant as the RC owner is required to send report to the company and get damage assessed. In the case on hand the complainant despite advice and request by the OP has not made attempt to get the damage and damages assessed. There are two ways open to the complainant in the matter of this type first one if insured vehicle is damaged and if it can be repaired, he should get it estimated through an approved garage or any other garage and also get the damage assessed through the surveyor and after getting the vehicle repaired submit the claim application to the OP with necessary documents for reimbursement of that expenditure. Nextly if the damages so extensive resulting in total loss then also he is required to get it assessed or inspected and claim insured value of the vehicle from the company. But the complainant has not done either of this but by sitting in his house he wants the value of the bike without performing part of its function. Therefore under the circumstance, the OP is not obliged to compensate, the complainant blindly as such the complaint under the facts and circumstance of the case is not maintainable. Because the complainant has not proved to had made claim under the terms and conditions of the policy to OP for reimbursement in the form of legal claim as such the OP is not obliged to reimburse and that refusal do not amounts deficiency. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed by answering point no.1 in the negative. However, considering the facts of the case we observe let the complainant make a claim with the OP to compensate the loss in accordance with the law and under the terms and conditions of the policy. Further that, the OP without taking plea of belated claim shall process and settle the claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions. With this, we pass the following order: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed. Both the parties to bear their own costs. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 19th July 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />