Date of Filing:16.06.2008<br /> Date of Order:17.01.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2009<br /> PRESENT<br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1326 OF 2008<br /> Chuna Rafi Ahmed<br /> M/s. Bhuran Prime Traders<br /> No. 2, Chuna Tannery Corporation<br /> No. 40, K.G. Halli, Bangalore Complainant<br /> V/S<br /> United India Insurance Co. Ltd.<br /> No. 198, Manjunatha Complex<br /> 2nd Floor, CMH Road, Indiranagar<br /> Bangalore 560 038<br /> Rep. by its Divisional Manager Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. <br /> The facts of the case are that the complainant is a manufacturer of leather jackets and other allied products. He had stored leather jackets in his tannery for export. Some were due to consignment on 11.09.2006. On the night of 10.09.2006 at 10.30 p.m. tannery premises was closed after days work and on 11.09.2006 at 10.00 a.m. when the tannery was opened the complainant came to know that theft has taken place in his tannery. Thieves have stolen 16 boxes of leather jacket containing 192 pieces of leather jackets. Complainant lodged complaint before K.G. Halli police on 11.09.2006. Complainant had availed burglary policy from opposite party on 08.09.2006. Complainant has given representation dated 07.09.2007 to the opposite party. Policy was availed from 08.09.2006 to midnight on 07.09.2007. Complainant requested the opposite party to consider his claim and release Rs. 4,51,584/- being loss sustained by him due to theft of goods from his premises. Complainant received a letter on 10.09.2007 rejecting the claim. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint requesting to direct the opposite party to pay sum of Rs. 4,51,584/- with compensation and interest. <br /> 2. Notice issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance through advocate and filed defence version stating that complaint is not maintainable. Complaint is devoid of merits. Policy issued does not cover risk of theft. It is a clear breach of condition of policy clause 4 of the policy as the claim has been lodged with the opposite party one year after the alleged theft and curiously on 07.09.2007 on which day the policy expired by efflux of time. The attitude and conduct of the complainant is highly suspicious and complaint lacks bonafides and as such complaint is rejected. If the complainant had given prompt intimation to the opposite party in terms of clause 4 of the policy the opposite party would have under taken its own investigation and would have appointed an investigator, surveyor and chartered accountant to inspect the premises. Hence, the opposite party has requested to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Both the parties have filed affidavit evidence and written arguments also.<br /> 4. It is an admitted case of the complainant that he had obtained Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy. The period of insurance covered was from 08.09.2006 to midnight 07.09.2007. As per the complainant on 10.09.2006 night theft had taken place in his tannery. That means after 2 days of obtaining the policy incident had taken place. The complainant submitted that he has lodged complaint to the K.G. Halli police station on 11.09.2006. Copy of complaint is produced. In the complaint the value of the goods stolen not mentioned. Copy of FIR is produced. Copy of policy has also been produced. The complainant has submitted petition to the Divisional Manager on 07.09.2007. The copy of his petition is produced. As per the case of the complainant theft had taken place in his premises on 10.09.2006 and he intimated the said fact to the opposite party by letter dated 07.09.2007 and claimed the value of the goods of Rs. 4,52,584/-. The policy was due to expire on 07.09.2007 midnight. On the last date of expiry of policy the complainant has intimated the theft of goods to the opposite party and he has put up his claim. There are no reasons whatsoever as to why the complainant has made one year delay in intimating the fact of theft to the opposite party. The opposite party rejected the claim of the complainant by letter dated 10.09.2007 stating as under:<br /> “Claim intimation letter was received after one year from the date of theft. Kindly, note that any claim under burglary policy warrant immediate survey. This survey could not be arranged as there was no intimation from your end. Hence, regret to admit your claim.<br /> 5. The learned advocate for the opposite party brought to our notice clause 4 of Burglary Policy. Clause 4 reads as under:<br /> “CLAIMS PROCEDURE: Upon the happening of any event giving rise or likely to give rise to a claim under the policy:<br /> (a) The insured shall give immediate notice thereof in writing to the nearest office of the Company with a copy to the policy issuing office of the Company as well as lodge forthwith a complaint with the Police.<br /> (b) The insured shall deliver to the Company, within 14 days of the date on which the even shall have come to his knowledge, a detailed statement in writing, of the loss or damage, with an estimate of the intrinsic value of the property lost and the amount of damage sustained.<br /> (c) The Insured shall tender to the company all reasonable information, assistance and proofs in connection with any claim.”<br /> 6. So under this clause the complainant should have brought to notice of opposite party the event of theft. Admittedly, the complainant has not intimated the theft to the opposite party for about one year from the date of alleged theft. The complainant has not delivered to the opposite party within 14 days of the date on which the event shall have come to the knowledge, a detailed statement in writing of loss as per clause 4(b) of the condition. Clause 12 of the policy is as under:<br /> “Observance of terms and conditions: The due observance and fulfillment of the terms, conditions and endorsements of this policy in so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the Insured, shall be a conditions precedent to any liability of the company to make any payment under the policy.”<br /> 7. So as per this clause it is clear that observation of the conditions of policy is the condition precedent to any liability of the company to make any payment under this policy. Therefore, in this case the complainant has failed to comply terms and conditions of the policy. The conduct and the manner in which the complainant acted in this case gives suspicion in the bonafides of the complainant. The alleged theft had taken place just after 2 days of taking policy and the complainant has kept quite for one year and he has submitted his claim on the last date of expiry of the policy. Therefore, all these facts lead to suspicion. There was no opportunity for opposite party to enquire and appoint surveyor or investigator to inspect the premises to find out the fact and loss. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances and the conduct of the complainant the complaint lacks bonafide. On the facts of the case the rejection of the claim by the opposite party is justified. Therefore, no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party can be attributed. Therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 8. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 9. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />