T. LAXMINARAYAN GOUD Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, THE UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful complainant filed the appeal challenging the order of the District Forum, Nizamabad in C.D.No. 20 of 2007.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant for his agricultural operation had purchased a Tractor bearing number AP-25D-7083 and got insured it with the respondent company vide the insurance policy bearing number 050702/47/04/00133 for the period from 12th August, 2004 to 11th August, 2005. On 26th June, 2005 the Tractor was taken to the field of Suleman by the son of the appellant, Sanjay Goud and Akram Sailoo. While returning from the field of Suleman, the Tractor developed mechanical problem at the outskirts of the village. Leaving the vehicle there, the son of the appellant had returned along with a mechanic to the place where the Tractor was stranded and found the Tractor missing. After making all possible efforts, the son of the appellant lodged complaint on 28th June, 2005 with the Police Kotagiri. The police registered a case in crime no.379 of 2005 under Section 379 of I.P.C. The appellant had informed the respondent company about the incident. The respondent had repudiated the claim on 13th June, 2006. The appellant claimed the sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- and compensation of Rs.50, 000/-.

(3.) The respondent has resisted the claim contending that appellant immediately after the incident had not informed the respondent company. The appellant had not taken necessary steps to safeguard the vehicle. The vehicle was left unattended. The Police filed final report stating that the vehicle is undetectable only on the statement of the son of the appellant and his farm servant, Akram Sailoo. The Police had not recorded the statements of Indur Sailoo and Trishul Shankar Rao who are the neighbors of the scene of occurrence and the appellant who is the owner of the vehicle. In violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the appellant informed the respondent on 18th July,2005, after a delay of 22 days about the theft of the vehicle. The respondent investigated the matter through an investigator, P.Rajeshwer Rao who made local enquiry and reported that the vehicle was not stolen and the claim was not genuine.