Date of Filing : 28.12.2010
Date of Order : 08.08.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 020
Dated 8th AUGUST 2011
PRESENT
Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A., LL.B. (SPL) …. President
Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A., LL.B. …. Member
Sri. BALAKRISHNA V. MASALI, B.A., LL.B.(SPL) …. Member
COMPLAINT NO. 3016 / 2010
A.B. Bhaskar Reddy,
S/o. Buddareddy, Major,
R/at: No. 11, 7th Cross, 8th Main,
Brindavana Nagar, SBM Colony,
Mathikere,
Bangalore – 560 054. ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. The Proprietor,
M/s. Sangeetha Mobiles Pvt. Ltd.,
Manthri Mall, Malleswaram,
Bangalore.
2. The Manager,
M/s. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
CBO-7, VP-4, 1st ‘A’ Cross,
Police Station Road, 1st Stage,
Peenya Industrial Estate,
Bangalore – 560 058. …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
(By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale)
This Complaint is filed by the Complainant u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Brief facts of the case are that Complainant had purchased Samsung Mobile from OP1 on 14.06.2010 for Rs.6,491/-. OP1 had obtained insurance for the period from 14.06.2010 to 13.04.2011 towards loss & theft of the Mobile. On 21.09.2010 he woke up in the early morning at 6.15 AM and he went to toilet which is outside the house without closing the main door. At that time brother and the cousin were sleeping in the house. At that time, some unknown person entered the house of the Complainant and stolen away four Mobiles and money along with purses. In this regard, Complainant has given Complaint to the concerned Yeshwanthpur Police Station. Police have registered the Complaint and it is still under investigation. Complainant on the advise of the OP1 has given insurance claim form to OP2, but OP2 has not settled the claim and sent letter stating that the claim is not tenable. Hence filed the Complaint praying that OP be directed to pay Rs.6,491/- towards stolen mobile and damages of Rs.2,000/-.
2. OP1 remained exparte. OP2 has filed defence versions stating that claim is not tenable under the terms of the policy. Claim has been repudiated under the exclusion clause. No forcible entry has occurred into the premises and that door was kept open and hence the cause of loss is outside the scope of the policy. Therefore, OP submitted that they are unable to admit the claim. Hence, OP prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. Arguments are heard.
4. Points for consideration are as under:
(1) Whether the Complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of OP?
(2) Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief ?
(3) What order ?
5. The Learned Counsel for the OP2 relied upon the terms & conditions of the Policy and he referred us to the exclusion clause. As per the policy conditions, to claim indemnity of the stolen Mobile, there should be forcible entry into the premises or there must be violations used by the culprits. But, in this case, admittedly Complainant had kept the door open. On 21.09.2010 in the morning he went to answer nature call by keeping the door open. Therefore, admittedly, there was no forcible entry by the culprits. Even it is not the case of the Complainant that there was violation used by the culprits. So, it is not the case of violation. Under these circumstances, under exclusion clause of the policy the claim is not admissible. Secondly, OP has relied upon that all the claims in respect of theft shall be submitted within 48 hours of the incident. In this case, again Complainant has violated this condition. Admittedly, theft had taken place on 21.09.2010 whereas the Complainant has given claim form on 11.10.2010 i.e., after more than 19 days. Policy terms & conditions specify that claim documents should be submitted to the insurance company or to the dealer within 48 hours from the occurrence of the theft. Therefore, under this clause also Complainant is not entitled for the claim. Taking into consideration of the terms of the policy, OP2 has rightly repudiated the claim. OP cannot be faulted with in rejecting the claim. Complainant has not proved deficiency of service on the part of OP2. Therefore, he is not entitled for the claim amount. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Complaint is dismissed.
Send copy of this Order to both the parties free of cost immediately.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 8th day of August 2011.
Order accordingly
PRESIDENT
We concur the above findings
MEMBER MEMBER
SSS
