M.C.CHACHAPAN vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

THE appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23.2.2004 made by the District Forum, South Goa in Complaint No. 116/97.

SUCCINCTLY, it is the appellant original complainant''s case that he had insured his Mahindra Jeep bearing registration No. GA-02/1240 with the opposite party Insurance Company for Rs. 1,99,000. On 9.7.1994 the appellant was travelling to Karwar along with one Shri Gurudas Shetkar when the said jeep broke down at Gopashitta in Karwar District at around 4.30 p.m. The appellant locked the jeep and brought a mechanic by name Mr. Chari on the next day and to his great surprise found that the jeep was missing. Complaint was lodged with Karwar police on 15.7.94. The respondents were informed of the theft on 21.7.2004. However, the appellant''s claim was rejected after being duly processed by the respondents. Hence the complaint. Per contra, the respondents filed their written version before the trial Forum and raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the complaint. It was submitted that the vehicle was insured for a sum of Rs. 1,75,000 and not for Rs. 1,99,000 as alleged. The appellant had delayed in filing the complaint to the Police. Karwar City was at a very short distance from the place of alleged incident where mechanics and workshops could easily be found; it was unbelievable that the appellant came all the way to Goa to get a mechanic leaving the vehicle on the roadside overnight unattended and unprotected. The respondents investigators had reported that no theft had taken place and that there were no records of the said vehicle having crossed Goa border and/or entered Karnataka State on the fateful day. The vehicle was hypothecated to State Bank of India Vasco and that the appellant had defaulted in repayment of the said loan and that there was a possibility of the theft incident having been concocted.

The District Forum, after perusing the evidence and hearing the parties held that there was no deficiency in service rendered by the respondents and dismissed the Complaint.

WE have perused the records of the trial Forum in minute detail and considered lengthy arguments advanced by learned Counsel. We are not convinced with the appellant''s narration of events leading to the alleged theft, more so the alleged fact that the appellant opted to travel way back to Margao that was about 50 kms from the spot while Karwar city was hardly 8 kms away and had all facilities for repairing or towing the said vehicle. So also the records maintained at the border check post did not show that the vehicle had passed. There is no justification for lodging the theft complaint almost 11 days after the incident, more so in view of the admitted fact that the Insurance Policy conditions stipulated that such intimation to the Insurance Company must be given immediately.

IN view of our discussions, the impugned order does not call for any interference. IN our considered opinion, the respondents were justified in rejecting the claim of the appellants in the facts and under the circumstances narrated above. Nothing survives in this Appeal and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.