DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. IMMADISETTY HANUMANTHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.102/2007 on the file of District Forum Prakasam at Ongole, the opposite party preferred this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of motor cycle bearing no.A.P.27/F 2871 which he purchased for an amount of Rs.52,000/- inclusive of life tax and insurance vide registration certificate dt.10.5.2001 and he insured the same with the opposite party on 29.6.2004 for a policy covering all risks inclusive of theft and he paid premium of Rs.770/- towards the said policy. The policy covers the period from 29.6.2004 to 28.6.2005. On 11.5.2005 at 7 a.m. the complainant parked his motor cycle in the parking place and after he returned from the vegetable market, he noticed that his mother cycle was missing. He searched all the surrounding places but did not detect the vehicle. He reported to the Ongole Town Police Station and also approached Superintendent of Police, Prakasam Dist. on 9.1.2006 and sought direction from him to the Sub Inspector of Police to investigate his case. The vehicle was not detected and the insurance company also did not choose to settle his claim of Rs.30,000/-. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the insurance company to pay the claim amount of Rs.30,000/- with interest, compensation and costs.

(3.) The opposite party filed written versions stating that the theft of movable property is a cognizable offence and a report has to be given to the police and the same has to be registered in the concerned police station, but in this case no case was registered till now and a report was given to the police on 9.1.2006 and there is no proof that the vehicle was stolen on 11.5.2005 and in the absence of any documentary proof it cannot be assumed that the vehicle was really stolen and hence the repudiation is justified.