Karnataka

StateCommission

A/824/2020

Hanume Gowda - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

T.Govindaraja

10 Oct 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

 

PRESENT

 

SRI. RAVI SHANKAR                         : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI              : MEMBER

 

Appeal No. 824/2020

 

Hanumegowda S/o. Mahadevappa, R/at Beside BSNL Office, Near Aralimara, Kora, Kora post, Tumkur Tq. & Dist. (By Sri. T. Govindaraja) V/s	….Appellant
1.  Reliance General Insurance      Rep. by its General Manager,      Balaji Towers, 1st floor,      Ashokanagar, B.H.Road,      Tumakuru-572101 2.  The General Manager      Kanakadurga Finance Ltd.,      J.P.Nagar, 2nd Stage, 24th Main Road,      Near R.V.Dental College,      Bengaluru-560078	..…Respondents

O R D E R

 

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The complainant preferred this appeal against dismissal order dated 23.01.2020 in Consumer Complaint No.1/2020 passed by District Commission, Tumkur as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

2. The appellant submits that he is owner of Mahindra Bolero Goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-13-B-2163 which was hypothecated with OP No.1/ respondent No.2, for a loan of Rs.3.00 lakhs which was availed for purchase of said vehicle.  At the time of purchase the complainant insured the said vehicle with OP No.1 which was valid for the year 2019-20.  Such being the case on 24/25.06.2.019 the vehicle was stolen by some unknown persons and thereafter he reported the complaint before Kora police station on 01.09.2019.  Police registered case under Crime No.106/2019 under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code.  After submission of the complaint the complainant submitted a claim application with OP No.1 on 14.09.2019, but, the said claim was repudiated for the reasons that there is delay in informing theft of the vehicle and also suspect theft of the vehicle, against which complainant preferred complaint before District Commission alleging deficiency in service and prays for direction to insurance company to settle the claim towards theft of the vehicle.  The District Commission dismissed the complaint for the reason that delay in informing the theft of the vehicle to both police and insurance company.  Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and prays to allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay assured amount towards theft of the vehicle.
3. Heard.
4. On going through the certified copy of the order, memorandum of appeal and documents produced by appellant there is no dispute that the vehicle was hypothecated with OP No.2 as on the date of purchase and it is also not in dispute that the vehicle was insured with OP No.1 which is valid for the year 2019-20.  It is also not in dispute that on 24/25.06.2019 the vehicle was stolen by unknown persons and police registered complaint on 01.09.2019, according to the complaint given by the complainant.  We noticed here that the complainant had not given police complaint as soon as theft occurred whereas he has waited for nearly 65 days to inform the OP/insurance company.  We noticed in the order the District Commission has observed that the complainant on 06.07.2019 has reported to the Kora Police against his relatives for suspecting possession of the vehicle for financial transactions.  Subsequently, complainant had lodged a complaint after 65 days under Section 379 of IPC alleging theft of the vehicle.  Thereafter, the complainant approached the insurance company / OP No.1 for claim towards theft of the vehicle.  We found the complainant has given a police complaint after thought and there is a delay in informing theft of the vehicle to the insurance company.  Due to non-informing the theft of the vehicle within 48 hours to the Insurance Company/ OP No.1 curtailed opportunity for investigation of the vehicle.  Hence, repudiation made by OP not amounts to any deficiency in service.  District Commission has rightly appreciated the evidence of both parties and dismissed the complaint.  We found there is no merit.  Order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with law.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

 

 

 

MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

CV*