This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on                      02-06-11 in the presence of Sri N.Srinivasa Rao, advocate for complainant and of Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, advocate for opposite party, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: 

O R D E R

Per Sri M.V.L.Radha Krishna Murthy, Member:

                This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to direct the opposite party to pay the vehicle amount of Rs.35,000/- duly covered under policy, compensation of Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and interest at 24% p.a. on the amount claimed and for costs.

The averments of complaint in brief are as follows:

                The complainant purchased Hero Honda Passion Bike bearing No.AP07 Q 3675 and insured the said vehicle with opposite party and opposite party issued policy, which is valid upto 05-05-06.  The complainant’s bike was stolen by some unknown persons on            16-12-05 when he kept it on the western side Railway Booking Office, Arundelpet, Guntur.  The matter was reported to the police and the same was registered as crime No.375/05 of Arundelpet L&O PS under section 379 IPC.  The same was also intimated to opposite party by the complainant on 19-12-05 but the opposite party did not choose to pay the insured amount.  Hence, the complaint gave registered legal notice on 19-08-07 demanding opposite party for payment of the insured amount.  But the opposite party kept quite without giving any reply even though they have received notice.  Thus, the opposite party committed deficiency of service.  Hence, the complaint.

The opposite party filed its version, which is in brief as follows:

                The complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  The complainant is guilty of suppresio vari and suggestio falsi, as such the complaint is not maintainable.  Most of the averments of complaint are incorrect and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.   The liability of opposite party is out of contract of insurance and the liability of opposite party is subject to terms and conditions of policy.  In case of theft as per policy conditions, it is duty of owner/insured to submit all the required documents like (1) undetectable certificate (2) vehicle keys (3) original policy (4) final report (5) claim form (6) letter of subrogation to process the claim.  The claim of complainant is pending only due to non-submission of above said documents by the complainant.  On receipt of legal notice from the complainant, the opposite party sent a reply notice dt.27-08-07 and requested the complainant to submit the above said documents within 15 days from the date of receipt of letter, failing which, the claim will be treated as no claim.  Without submitting the said documents, the complainant filed this complaint.  Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  There is no cause of action to file the present complaint and it is also barred by limitation. 

                The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and made an attempt to get unlawful gain if possible without disclosing the material facts that the said theft vehicle was recovered by the police concerned and filed charge sheet against the accused in CC 392/06, wherein the complainant is shown as LW1.  The said property was with the police.  As such the claim is infructious.  Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The complaint may be dismissed with costs.

                The complainant and opposite party have filed their respective affidavits in support of their contentions reiterating the same. 

                On behalf of complainant Ex.A1 to A7 are marked and on behalf opposite party Ex.B1 to B7 are marked.

Now the points for consideration are

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

POINT No.1

                It is not in dispute that the complainant had purchased a Hero Honda bike and the same was insured with opposite party and that during the subsistence of policy, the vehicle was committed theft. 

                The case of complainant is that even though he claimed for the insured amount, the opposite party has not settled the claim and hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  But the case of opposite party is that the complainant has not submitted the required documents to settle the claim of complainant and that the complainant has not disclosed the material fact that the vehicle in question was recovered by the police concerned and charge sheet was also filed against the accused, wherein the complainant is shown as LW1 and that the said property was with the police concerned as such the claim of complainant is infructious. 

                As seen from Ex.B5 copy of charge sheet filed in                   CC 292/06 on the file of V Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, the vehicle in question was recovered by the police concerned and charge sheet was also filed against the accused, wherein the complainant was shown as LW1.  The said fact of recovery of vehicle by the police was not disclosed by the complainant either in his complaint or in his affidavit.  As seen from Ex.B7 letter addressed by opposite party to the complainant, the complainant is required to submit certain documents to settle the claim and it was also informed therein that if the said documents are not supplied within 15 days from the date of receipt of letter, they will close the claim file treating it as “NO CLAIM”.  It is not the case of complainant that he has submitted required documents and inspite of the same, the opposite party has not settle the claim.  Without submitting the required documents, the complainant approached this Forum. 

                During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for complainant submitted that the recovered vehicle was not the vehicle of complainant.  But as already stated above, the recovery of vehicle by the police and filing charge sheet against the accused was not disclosed by the complainant neither in his complaint nor in his affidavit.  Therefore, the said contention of learned counsel for complainant is not tenable.   As already stated above, the vehicle was recovered by the police and the same was with the police concerned.  Therefore, the claim of complainant is infructious.   For the reasons stated above, it can be safely concluded that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in settling the claim and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                In the result, the complaint is dismissed but in the circumstances of case each party shall bear their own costs.        

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 8^th day of June, 2011.

             Sd/- x x x                               Sd/- x x x                             Sd/- x x x      

          MEMBER                               MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                         DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:                                                                  

                                                                                        Sd/- x x x

                                                                               PRESIDENT