Ashish Kumar Sharma vs United India Insurance Co Ltd

-THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 21. 7. 2006, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh, (hereinafter called "district Forum" for short) in complaint No. 04/2006, whereby the appellant''s complaint was dismissed.

INDISPUTABLY, the complainant/appellant is the owner of Bajaj Boxer motor cycle, bearing registration No. CG-13-B-1928, which was purchased by him on 6. 2. 2003. It is also not in dispute that the complainant/appellant got the said vehicle comprehensively insured by the insurer-United India Insurance Co. Ltd.-respondent No. 4 herein. Premium of Rs. 853 was duly paid to the complainant/ respondent No. 4 towards issuance of the policy. Coverage of the risk under the policy, issued by the respondent No. 4 was for the period from 8. 2. 2003 to 7. 2. 2004 The complainant alleged that the aforesaid vehicle was stolen on the night of 6. 2. 2004 while it was parked in front of his parental house at Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Raigarh. The complainant averred that the report of the incident of theft was lodged by him with the police on 10. 2. 2004, on the basis of which Police Station Kotwali, Raigarh also registered an offence. It was further averred that complainant reported the matter to the insurer by letter dated 16. 2. 2004. It was further averred that the insurer by letter dated 5. 7. 2004, received by the complainant/appellant on 7. 7. 2004; repudiated the complainant''s claim on the ground, that the theft did not occur within the policy period i. e. till 7. 2. 2004 and the allegation of the complainant that the vehicle was stolen on 6. 2. 2004, was false. Aggrieved by the repudiation of his claim, the complainant preferred the complaint before the District Forum.

The complaint was resisted by the respondents/insurer. According to the respondents/insurer the theft of the motor cycle did not occur while the policy was in force i. e. till 7. 2. 2004. The respondents/insurer further averred that the vehicle was stolen after 7. 2. 2004, as was reported by the investigator G. L. Mahant. It was also averred in the above context that the complainant tried to get the policy renewed on 9. 2. 2004 through one Sumant Bhattacharya by representing that the motor cycle had moved out of station. However, the insurer''s employee Santosh Sarthi, did not agree to the renewal of the policy, without physical inspection of the motor cycle, hence the renewal was not done. In the circumstances, the repudiation by letter dated 5. 7. 2004 was proper.

DISTRICT Forum in the impugned order held that though the complainant/appellant alleged that the motor cycle was stolen on 6. 2. 2004, yet he sought renewal of the policy on 9. 2. 2004. Therefore, the complainant''s allegation that the motor cycle was stolen on 6. 2. 2004 was held to be doubtful. The District Forum, therefore, held that since the policy expired on 7. 2. 2004 and since the complainant has failed to prove that the theft occurred before expiry of the policy as above, hence, the complainant was not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed. Learned Counsel for the parties were heard. Record was perused.

INDISPUTABLY, the policy covered the risk of the motor cycle from 8. 2. 2003 to 7. 2. 2004. Copy of the policy is placed on record which also indicates so. According to the complainant the theft occurred on the night of 6. 2. 2004 i. e. before the policy period expired. However, the respondents/insurer have denied the occurrence of the theft on 6. 2. 2004 and averred that it occurred some time later after the policy expired. In view of the above, the main question that arises for consideration is as to whether the complainant has established that the vehicle was stolen on 6. 2. 2004? It may be noticed in the above context that the complainant did not lodge the report with the police till 10. 2. 2004. It may be noticed that written complaint dated 10. 2. 2004 was submitted by the complainant on the basis of which Police Station Kotwali, Raigarh recorded FIR (Enclosure-4 ). There is no reason as to why the police report should not have been lodged promptly, had the theft occurred on 6. 2. 2004, in the city of Raigarh itself. The First Information Report could have been easily lodged promptly after the theft, on the same day or at least on the next day. No explanation has been offered by the complainant for the delay, in lodging the report.

IT may further be noticed in the above context, that the complainant did not inform the respondents/insurer also, about the theft of the vehicle till 16. 02. 2004, on which date he sent intimation as per (Enclosure-08 ). If the vehicle was stolen on 6. 2. 2004, the complainant could have easily reported the matter to the respondents/insurer much earlier, rather than waiting till 16. 2. 2004.

IT may further be noticed that the investigator G. L. Mahant appointed by the respondents/insurer in his report dated 20. 2. 2004 has stated that the complainant tried to get the renewal of the policy on 9. 2. 2004 from the respondents United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through an employee of ICICI bank namely Sumant Bhattacharya. The report also discloses that the complainant submitted an application on that date for renewal of the policy to Santosh Sarthi; an employee of the respondents/insurer. The statements of Santosh Sarthi and Sumant Bhattacharya was also recorded by investigator G. L. Mahant to the above effect, which also have been placed on record. The investigator G. L. Mahant and Santosh Sarthi have sworntheir affidavits also in the above regard. From the said documents and affidavits placed on record, it is abundantly clear that the complainant had attempted to get renewal of the policy on 9. 2. 2004. Clearly, had the motor cycle been stolen on 6. 2. 2004, then instead of reporting the matter to the police and to the respondents/insurer promptly, the complainant would not have tried to get the renewal of policy on 9. 2. 2004. Obviously, the conduct as above of the complainant clearly shows that the Motor Cycle was not stolen on 6. 2. 2004 i. e. before the expiry of the period of policy. Attempt and manipulation of the complainant in attempting to get a fresh policy falsifies his stand that the theft occurred on 6. 2. 2004. Therefore, it appears that the theft occurred later after the expiry of the policy on 7. 2. 2004. It further appears that on failing in his attempt to get renewal of the policy as above, the complainant thereafter proceeded to lodge a report on 10. 2. 2004 with the police and later on, on 16. 2. 2004 intimated the respondents/insurer regarding the theft of the vehicle.

The District Forum has considered above aspect of the matter in detail and has given cogent reason in arriving at the finding as above. Obviously, in the circumstance the inference drawn by District Forum that the theft did not occur on or before expiry of the policy on 7. 2. 2004, is wholly justified. The said finding is affirmed. In the foregoing circumstances of the case, the repudiation of the complainant''s claim also appears to be bona fide as it was after due application of mind and not without justification. For the foregoing reasons, the complaint was rightly dismissed by the District Forum. No interference in the impugned order is called for.

THIS appeal has no substance. It is accordingly dismissed. The impugned order is affirmed. Appeal dismissed.