VARNA MALLA REDDY Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.

(2.) The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased Contessa Classic diesel car on 15.7.2002 and obtained an insurance policy for Rs. 2 lakhs covering the period from 24.8.2002 to 23.8.2003. While so, on 9.8.2003 he went to Peddapalli village and while returning to Karimnagar by the time he reached Mogiumpur at about 9.30 p.m. the car was suddenly stopped due to mechanical failure. Therefore he parked on the road by locking it properly, and went to Karimnagar to fetch a mechanic. Since it was late in the night, he could not secure any mechanic. On the next day morning, he took a mechanic and found that the car was missing. They have searched the entire day and there after went to Rural Police Station, Karimnagar to give a complaint. The police advised them to search for some more places. When he could not trace, he gave a complaint on 11.8.2003, basing on which the police registered a case in Crime No. 268/2003 u/s 379 IPC. It was also informed to the insurance company. On 10.4.2004 the police filed final report as undetected. On that he lodged claim for the amount covered under the policy, on which the insurance company sent a letter directing him to furnish original insurance policy, R.C. book, Keys of the car etc. Accordingly he delivered them which was acknowledged on 10.2.2005. Despite his repeated requests it did not settle. Finally 1-1/2 years thereafter on 16.6.2006 it repudiated the claim on the ground that there was delay of 9 months in intimating the incident and no person to guard the car was appointed and no precautions were taken for safe custody of the vehicle. The repudiation after 2-1/2 years was unjustified. In fact he had taken all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle as against theft. Therefore he claimed Rs. 2 lakhs covered under the policy together with interest @ 18% p.a., compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and costs of Rs. 2,500/-.

(3.) The insurance company resisted the case. While admitting issuance of policy it alleged that it had received for the first time a letter from the complainant on 14.5.2004 informing the theft of car. It did not receive any intimation prior to it. He did not inform immediately after the occurrence. Therefore, they had no occasion to verify the allegation made by the complainant. Immediately it had appointed a licensed surveyor by name Sri S. Jagannantham to investigate. He submitted his report on 24.8.2004. When it had asked the complainant to furnish required documents by its letter Dt. 20.5.2004, 19.9.2004 and 11.2.2005 he did not choose to furnish. The facts disclose that he did not take any steps to safeguard the vehicle. On that they deputed another surveyor to further investigate the facts. He in turn submitted his report on 19.10.2005. The complainant had violated condition No. 1 pertaining to the notice to be given immediately as to the accident, loss or damage and condition No. 4 that the insured had to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss. The complainant went away without keeping any security or taking safety measures. The investigator had found that the complainant was intended to sell the car to a scrap dealer at Karimnagar, and as it was not materialized, he created this in order to get more money. However, the investigator Sri R. Srinivasa Rao assessed the value of the car at Rs. 75,000/- only as it was 1993 model car. The complainant concealed the said fact in order to have material gain. There was no delay. There was no deficiency in service on its part. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.