This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 14-09-11 in the presence of Sri G. Krishna Rao, advocate for complainant and of            Sri P. Vijay Kumar, advocate for opposite party, upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides  and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking assured amount of Rs.52,498/- or in alternative Rs.50,000/- towards compensation besides costs.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        Being owner of the Pulsar Motor cycle bearing No.AP 07 AK 6287 the complainant insured it with the opposite party vide policy No.150801/31/06/01/00003843.    The said policy was in force from 02-08-06 to 01-08-07.   Some unknown persons on 27-07-07 committed theft of the said motor cycle when the complainant kept it in front of the house duly locked.   The complainant gave a report to the SHO, Repalle PS who in turn registered it as Cr.No.92/2007.   After due investigation the SHO, filed final report before the II Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Repalle as undetected.   The complainant intimated about theft of his motor cycle to the opposite party.   The complainant acted as per the direction of the opposite party’s office bearers.   The opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant paid insurance premium subsequently.   The complainant by mistake or oversight paid the insurance.   The opposite party gave reply with untenable allegations.   Repudiation of the claim by the opposite party on untenable grounds amounted to deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.   The contention of the opposite party in brief is hereunder:

        The complainant made a claim to the effect that his vehicle was stolen on 27-07-07.   The opposite party through registered letter on 02-01-08 required the complainant to submit claim form, keys set for the alleged stolen vehicle, Registration Certificate, original policy, FIR, undetectable certificate with final report.  The complainant though received kept quite without giving any reply.   Subsequently the opposite party on 11-08-09 required the complainant to submit the above documents within 15 days as otherwise the claim will be closed treating it as ‘no claim’.   The complainant though received did not respond.   The complainant on 04-11-09 approached the opposite party and submitted two letters stated that the 2^nd key of motor cycle was lost and as such handing over only one key.   The complainant also stated that he could not submit required documents as busy with professional engagements and requested the opposite party to reopen the file.   The complainant took insurance coverage for his stolen vehicle from 10-04-08 to 09-04-09 in the Branch office-II, Kothapet, Guntur.   One P. Siva Prasada Rao, the Development Officer of the opposite party inspected the vehicle on 08-04-08 and found it in good condition.   Under those circumstances, the complainant loosing his vehicle under theft on 27-07-07 was absolutely false and created a record to have unlawful gain.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.     Exs.A-1 to A-4 on behalf of complainant and Exs.B-1 to B-10 on behalf of opposite party were marked.

5.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

1.     Whether the repudiation of claim by the opposite     party         is untenable?

2.  Whether the complainant is entitled to the assured     amount?

        3.     To what relief?

6.   Undisputed facts in the complaint are :

1. The complainant insured his vehicle b. No. AP 07 AK 6287          for the period from 02-08-06 to 01-08-07 vide policy              No.15080131060100003843  (Ex.B1).
2. The complainant insured the said vehicle again on 10-04-08 for the period from 10-04-08 to 09-04-09 (Ex.B-2).
3. The SHO, Repalle PS filed final report in Cr.No.92/2007 stating that all the efforts made to recover the stolen bike became in vain (Ex.A2).
4. Exchange of notices between the complainant and the opposite party (Exs.A-3, A-4 (=B-6 to B-10).
5. The complainant repudiated the claim on 16-06-10                (Ex.B-3).

7.    POINTS 1 & 2:-   The relevant clause in Ex.B-3 is extracted below for better appreciation:

                “On 09-04-08 you got the vehicle bearing AP 07 AK 6287 insured with Branch Office-2 of our company for a period of one     year i.e., 10-04-08 to 09-04-09 which was inspected by one of     our Development Officers of that office.  This means that you   are in the possession of the vehicle”.

8.     As the complainant insured his vehicle for the second time with the opposite party for the period from 10-04-08 to 09-04-09 the theft of vehicle on 27-07-09 cannot be accepted as rightly contended by the opposite party.    When such correspondence took place between the complainant and the opposite party regarding loss of vehicle the plea of complainant paying the amount by mistake towards the insurance policy for second time prima facie cannot be believed.   Under those circumstances the repudiation of claim by the opposite party under Ex.B-3 is justified.   We therefore opine that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.   In view of the afore mentioned discussion we answer these points against the complainant.

9.  POINT No.3:-   In view of above findings in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

          Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 17th day of September, 2011.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:

 PRESIDENT