BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD (ADDITIONAL BENCH)

FA. No.676/2019 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC. No.209/2018 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-III, HYDERABAD Between :

Mr. G. Chandra Sekhar, S/o. G. Venkata Rao, Aged about: 42 years, Occ: Private Service, R/o. Plot No.143 & 144, Chanayakpuri, Nagole, Ranga Reddy District – 500068.

…Appellant/ Complainant And:

The Regional Managar, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., 3^rd Floor, 3-6-180/2, Kichkulla House, Above Wills Lifestyle Showroom, HImayath Nagar, Hyderabad – 500029.

…Respondents/ Opposite parties Counsel for the Appellants/Complainant : M/s. R. Nageswara Reddy Counsel for the Respondent/Opp. party : M/s. N. Srinath Rao QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI K.RANGA RAO - PRESIDING OFFICER-

MEMBER - (JUDICIAL).

&

HON’BLE SMT.R.S.RAJESHREE, MEMBER (NON JUDICIAL).

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE ORDER:(PERHON’BLE SMT. R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER, N-JUDICIAL)

1. This appeal is filed on U/s.15 of C.P. Act, 1986, by the Complainant being aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Hyderabad, vide orders dt.30.10.2019, passed in CC. No.109/2018.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as Complainant and Opposite Party as arrayed in the original complaint.

The case of the complainant is that, he is the owner of Honda Twister vehicle bearing No.AP 29 BJ 5686 that he had got the said vehicle insured from the Opposite Party and the said policy was valid from 24.04.2016 to 23.04.2017 midnight. That on 10.06.2016 at about 10:00 pm. he parked his vehicle in his apartment, parking lot by locking the same. But, to his utter shock he could not find his vehicle on next day, that he has made thorough search for the same, but could not trace it. As such on 02.07.2016 he lodged a police complaint before the L.B. Nagar Police, who has registered an FIR and had proceeded with investigation. But, however, as the same could not be traced the police filed the final report in court on 07.11.2016 by stating that the vehicle is “undetected”. That on 21.09.2016 he had filed a claim before the Opposite Party as the vehicle was insured. But, however the Opposite Party had rejected the claim through a letter dated 19.10.2016 stating that there is a delay in filing the claim application. That despite there being an insurance policy rejecting the claim on the ground of delay amounts to deficiency of service. As such, the Complainant got issued a legal notice on 13.03.2017, but however, the Opposite Party had neither replied to the same nor had paid the claim amount. As such, having no other alternative the complaint was filed.

3. The Opposite Party filed its written version while admitting the issuance of policy and subsistence of the policy, but however, opposed the complaint on the ground that the Complainant has filed a claim with a delay on 107 days and that the Complainant had filed a police complaint with a delay of 21 days. Though the police had registered an FIR and undertaken the investigation, but the vehicle could not be traced due delay in intimation to the police. That the Complainant had not given an opportunity either to police or the Opposite Party to investigate immediately, had a complaint been given immediately the police would be in a position trace the vehicle. That due to the delay in intimation the thief might have travel long distance which has made it difficult for the police to trace the vehicle.

Further condition No.1 of the policy mandates that any theft or criminal act should be intimated in writing to the insurance company and the police immediately. That immediately after receiving the claim for the complainant an investigator was appointed who had conducted the investigation and filed a report stating that there is a delay in intimating the police with regard to the theft of vehicle. As such, as there was inordinate delay in informing the insurance company