VRINDAVAN BADONIYA Vs. MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the "Act of 1986") against the order dated 19th July, 2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sagar (for short the "Forum") in complaint case No.243/2012.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant had filed a complaint before the Forum stating therein that he owned a motor cycle which was insured w.e.f. 28.9.2010 to 27.9.2011 with the respondent / Insurance Company. On 25th November, 2010 at about 8:00 PM his brother Shivdayal Badoniya took the motor cycle from him and went with his friend to Bus Stand Rahatgarh. There he parked and locked the motor cycle near a Foreign Liquor Shop. At 9:30 PM when he returned, he did not find the motor cycle at the place where it was parked. His effort to search it extensively, failed. On the very next day i.e. on 26th November, 2010 he lodged FIR at Police Station, Moti Nagar at Sagar at 2:30 PM as Crime No.754 of 2010. The offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was registered by the police. The complainant further stated that on 26.11.2010 itself at 12:30 PM he went with written application in the office of the respondent / Insurance Company for intimating the theft of the motor cycle, but the application was not taken by the employee available there on the ground that the Senior Officer is not present in the office. It is also stated that the incident of theft was published in Newspaper on 27.11.2010. As the motor cycle was not found a claim seeking compensation for loss of motor cycle due to theft was lodged by him on 24.6.2011 before the respondent. The respondent repudiated the claim vide letter dated 19.7.2012. Feeling aggrieved the complaint was filed before the Forum.

(3.) The respondent / opposite party filed reply and had stated that the insurance policy for the said motor cycle was not in the name of the complainant, but was in the name of 'Veerendra Badoniya'. After lodging of the claim in his own name the complainant realizing the fact that the insurance is not in his name got the name changed in the policy and in place of name of 'Veerendra Badoniya' got his name recorded in the insurance policy on 29.3.2011 i.e. much after the alleged theft dated 25.11.2010. In reply the respondent denied about the complainant approaching to its office for giving intimation of theft. They also denied the allegation that the written application was refused by any employee of the respondent present in the office. It is stated that they got the intimation of theft for the first time only on 17.3.2011 when letter to that effect was submitted by the complainant. It is stated that claim for compensation with relevant documents was submitted by the appellant on 24.6.2011 which was repudiated by the respondent on 19.7.2012. As per the respondent the repudiation of claim was on the ground that the intimation of theft was not given within 48 hours of the alleged theft as required under the conditions of the policy and that at the time of alleged incident the insurance was in the name of 'Veerendra Badoniya' and not in the name of the complainant.