Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs MANOJ AGRAWAL

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 28.2.2006 in complaint No. 189/2005 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called ''District Forum'' for short) whereby the complaint was allowed. Aggrieved by this order the O.P. has come up with appeal.

BRIEF facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the complainant had purchased a motor cycle bearing Regd. No. CG-06-B-2760 and got it comprehensively insured with the O.P. for the period from 30.10.2004 to 29.10.2005 for a sum of Rs. 58,950. On 11.11.2004, the said vehicle was stolen. A report was lodged with the police but the O.P. denied to make any payment towards compensation. It was averred that the O.P. illegally repudiated his claim though the complainant had filed all the relevant documents with the O.P. Hence, the complaint. O.P. in the written version averred that there was no deficiency in service. The theft of motor cycle was reported to the O.P. after 55 days of the incident and despite demand being made by the O.P. the documents were not filed for about four months. On 17.5.2005, the O.P. had demanded documents but even then all relevant documents were not submitted. It was averred that the complainant had parked the vehicle on road without locking the same at about 11.30 in the night and obviously complainant was negligent in doing so and was not entitled to receive any compensation and as such there was no deficiency in service on part of the O.P. in repudiating the claim.

Heard both the learned Counsel and perused the record.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that the vehicle was parked on the road in unlocked condition at about 11 to 11.30 p.m. This itself amounts to negligence and was also in breach of terms of policy, hence the claim was repudiated after proper application of mind and as such does not amount to deficiency in service. He further submitted that due to belated intimation to the O.P./appellant, the O.P. could not get the matter properly examined and delayed intimation is also breach of policy condition No. 1. He further submitted that the learned District Forum has totally ignored the fact that the claim was repudiated due to terms and conditions of the insurance policy being violated and as such the learned District Forum failed to appreciate the material on record in its proper perspective. He prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allowing this appeal. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and averred that there was no need for interference with the said order. He further submitted that though the motor cycle was not locked but the same was parked in front of the house and the shop of the complainant. So, it cannot be said that it was kept at an unsecured place. Learned Counsel for the respondent relied on Hemant Kumar Cattakwar v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., decided by this Commission on 22.3.2006.

SO far as the question of delayed intimation to the insurer is concerned, we are of the opinion that the delay in giving intimation could not be so material if in case intimation is given in time to the police. In this case also, even if the intimation to the Insurance Company was delayed, the police was duly informed. SO, in this case the delay in giving intimation to the insurer would not be fatal. However, it is noticed that in Hemant Kumar Cattakwar''s case (supra), the motor cycle was parked in the Verandah of the saw-mill inside the campus of saw-mill. But in the appeal in hand the motor cycle was left on the road in front of the house. The road cannot be said to be a secured place and vehicle parked on a road cannot be equated with the vehicle parked inside the campus. Hence, the facts of his case are different and the complainant cannot take advantage of the aforesaid case law decided by us. Since the vehicle was left on the road in front of the house in unlocked condition, we are of the opinion that the complainant/respondent had failed to take due care of his vehicle and had violated the terms of policy and the O.P./appellant has not committed any deficiency in service in repudiating the claim on the aforesaid ground. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained. It is set aside. The appeal is allowed and the complaint is dismissed. Appeal allowed.