Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/75/2013

Pathan samiulla son of Rahman Patan - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.Shri Ram General Insurance company ltd.Rep by its Manager - Opp.Party(s)

M.D.Rahimkhan

17 Aug 2015

ORDER

Date of filing      : 10-01-2014  

Date of Disposal : 17-08-2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

                                Monday, this the 17th  day of AUGUST, 2015.

          PRESENT:  Sri M.Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com., B.L., LL.M.,

                                President(FAC),

         

                                      Sri N.S.Kumara Swamy,B.Sc. LL.B., Member

                             

 

                                                                    C.C.No.75/2013

Pathan Samiulla,

S/o.Rahman Patan,

Muslim, aged about 32 years,

R/o.Sangam Kothuru Village,

Atmakur Mandal,

Nellore Dt.                                                                             …  Complainant

                      Vs.

1.Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd.,

   Rep. by its Manager,

   Collection office, Shiram Chit Fund Pvt.Ltd.,

   Indira Bavan Road, Nellore.

 

2. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd.,

    Rep. by its Manager,

    D.No.4/15/19/2, Amaravathi Road,

    Near Ala Hospital,

    Guntur-522002.                                                         … Opposite parties

 

This matter coming on 06-08-2015 before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri Md.Rahimkhan, Advocate  for the  complainant and Opposite party No.1 remained absent and Sri P.V.Mallikarjuna Reddy, Advocate for the opposite party No.2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (BY SRI N.S.KUMARA SWAMY, MEMBER ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH)

1.     The brief averments of the complaint are that he purchased one Piaggio Ape passenger auto bearing No.A.P.26TT9456 through loan for eaking out his livelihood and insured the same with the opposite parties under policy no.417006/31/12/002250 for Rs.1,00,000/- which was in force from            25-08-2011 to 24-08-2012 on payment of premium of Rs.3,588/-.  As per the terms of the policy the Ops indemnified the loss of damage or theft etc., for insured value of Rs.1,00,000/- the complainant alleged that his auto was committed theft by unknown offenders on 25-09-2011 at about 10-30 p.m. while it was parked in his house and the same was reported to police  and also Ops on 26-09-2011 about the theft of his auto which is Ex.A2 through a letter   The police registered the case and treated as undetectable and IV Addl.District Munisiff issued RCS proceedings as undetectable on 24-01-2013. Subsequently, the complainant further alleged that he submitted the claim application to the insurance authority along with all documents but the opposite parties repudiate the claim on 21-10-2011 on the ground that the information given to them belatedly that is for a period of 13 days though the same was informed immediately. On account of non payment of insurance amount he suffered mental agony and hence the opposite parties are liable for payment of insurance amount with interest compensation and costs for deficiency in service.   Hence, the complaint.  

 2.   On the other hand, the opposite parties resisted the complaint and denied all the allegations made in the complaint except that vehicle namely Auto was insured in their company bearing no.AP 26 TT9456 under policy no.417006/31/12/002250 valid from 25-08-2011 to 24-08-2012.  The opposite parties submits that  as per the documents filed by the complainant which reveals that complainant’s auto was said to be stolen infront of his house on 25-09-2011 and gave a complaint to the Police on   08-10-2011.  Further he denied the  intimation given to the opposite parties immediately after the incident happened as this opposite party will not having any branch at Nellore, but received claim application only on  15-10-2011.  In which it was stated that auto said to have been stolen by somebody.  Further contended that accident took place on 25-09-2011 and lodged a police complaint on       8-10-2011 with a gap of 13 days and the same was informed through theft intimation on 15-10-2011 with a gap 20 days and after scrutiny the repudiation letter was given on 21-10-2011 wherein it was ordered that alleged theft took place on 25-09-2011 and the claim given to the opposite party belatedly.  Further stated that vehicle was financed by Aruna Leasing and Finance Ltd., Vijayawada,  at the relevant time and the said party is not added as necessary party which is bad for non joinder of necessary party.  Further the complainant is not a consumer as defined u/s.2(d) of C.P.Act as the complaint filed in 2(d) of C.P.Act.  Hence, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Hence, the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation and costs etc., and the complaint may be dismissed with exemplary costs since it is a frivolous case.

3.     The point for consideration would be

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties if so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
2.  To what relief?

4.    To substantiate the case, the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A9 and on the other hand the opposite party filed evidence on affidavit as RW1 and marked Ex.B1 to  B3.

5.    Both sides filed written arguments. Heard the oral arguments on behalf of the both sides.

6.  Perused the entire material on record.  Before deciding the case on merits the insurance company has envisaged the conditions of the policy hereunder

1. Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any action into loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all information and assistance as the company shall require.  Every letter claim writ summons and are process of copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured.  Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge give impending prosecution, inquest or fatal enquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give raise to a claim under this policy.  In case of theft or criminal Act which may be a subject of a claim under this policy the inured will give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender.

7.    As seen from the records it is disclosed that the complainant reported theft intimation to the IV Town P.S. on 8-10-2011 Ex.A3 and the same was registered on 8-10-2011 at 12-30 P.M. under section 379 I.P.C.  and issued F.I.R. which is Ex.A4 which is contrary to the statement given by the complaint in which it was stated as theft intimation given on 26-09-2011 i.e. Ex.A2.  Hence, the version of the complainant is unbelievable as the complaint to the police and FIR reveals that complaint given on 8-10-2011 with a gap of 13 days which is violation of the policy condition No.1. 

8.    Further the complainant stated that he has given theft intimation to the insurance authorities on 26-09-2011 which is Ex.A2 immediately after the occurrence of the theft.   No proof of acknowledgement of theft intimation, received from the opposite parties filed in support of his version.  Except, self saving statement of submitting the theft intimation through affidavit immediately to the opposite parties there was no iota of   evidence placed by the complainant. Further no proof of acknowledgement of theft intimation from the opposite parties, not filed to substantiate his case.  Mere plea of oral information not acceptable, as per the conditions of the policy No.1.  But the opposite parties filed the insurance claim slip which is Ex.B2 wherein the said document reveals that claim received along with FIR on 15-10-2011 and the claim application closed on 21-10-2011 which is Ex.B3.  Hence, it is patently clear that the claim application submitted with a delay of 20 days and it is not admissible under the policy condition No.1, as it is a belated one.

9.   The opposite parties further raised an objection on the point of jurisdiction. In this context, the complainant alleged deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties on the point of repudiation of claim.  Hence, the complaint is maintainable in this context only.  Further, the opposite parties raised an objection the vehicle was purchased under commercial vehicle package.  As such, the liability of the opposite parties is limited to the terms and conditions of the policy.  In this context, the complainant purchased the said vehicle for eaking out his livelihood.  Hence, the complaint is maintainable in this regard also.  

10.        In this context we observed that in the case of theft  where no bodily injured has been caused to the insured it is incumbent upon the respondent to inform the police about the theft immediately say within 24 hours otherwise valuable time would be lossed in tracing the vehicle.  Similarly, the insurer should also be informed within a day or two days so that insurer can verify as to whether any theft had taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced.  The insurer can coordinate and cooperate with the police to trace the auto.  Delay reporting to insurer would be violation of conditions of policy as it deprives the insurer of valuable rights to investigate as the commissioner of theft and to trace help in tracing the vehicle. 

11.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India “United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.M/s.Hemachandra Rao Chandanlal reported in JT 2004(8) SC 8 has held that terms of policy have to be constituted as it is nothing can be added or subtracted from the same.  The policy provides that in case of theft the matter should be reported immediately in the context of car.  Word “immediately has to be construed strictly to make the insurance company liable to pay compensation”.

12.    In the present case, admittedly the complainant on account of delay in intimating the information of theft to the insurance company the insurance company. The insurance company have deprived the legitimate right of enquiry about theft of vehicle immediately and the complainant has not established this case by way of rejoinder with relevant proof of material.  In the absence of the same it is clear cut violation of the mandatory terms and conditions of the policy and as such no deficiency can be attributed to the opposite parties, accordingly point no.1 is answered. 

13. POINT No.2:   In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs, which is not having any merits in this case.

     Typed to the dictation to the stenographer and corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum this the 17th day of AUGUST, 2015.    

 

               Sd/-                                                                         Sd/-

         MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

  APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

PW1

17-04-2015

:

Pathan Samiulla, S/o.Rahman Patan, Muslim, aged about 34 years, R/o.Sangam Kothuru Village, Atmakur Mandal, Nellore District.

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

RW1 08-06-2015 : J.Vijay Kumar, S/o.Ganganna, Hindu, Legal Officer, aged 42 years and residing at Kadapa City, Andhra Pradesh State.

              

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1          25-08-2011 :        Copy of Certificate cum policy schedule

                                               Insurance policy No.417006/31/12/002250

                                               of Rs.1,00,000/- issued by the opposite party.

 

Ex.A2          26-09-2011  :       Copy of theft intimation letter addressed by

                                               the complainant to the  opposite party No.1.

 

Ex.A3          08-10-2011 :        True copy of letter addressed by the

                                               complainant to the IV Town Police Station,

                                               Nellore.

 

 

Ex.A4          08-10-2011 :         Copy of F.I.R. registered in IV Town

                                               P.S.Nellore.

 

 

Ex.A5                    -        :         Copy of Final Report given by the S.I. of

                                               police, IV Town, P.S., Nellore. to the Hon’ble

                                               V Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Nellore

                                               City.

 

Ex.A6          24-01-2013 :         Copy of proceedings of the V Addl.Judicial

                                               Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

 

Ex.A7           21-10-2011 :        Letter addressed by the opposite parties to the

                                              complainant.

 

Ex.A8          10-09-2010 :         Copy of Certificate of registration of vehicle AP

                                               26 TT9456.

 

Ex.A9          05-01-2012 :         Copy of Driving License of the complainant.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:                      

 

Ex.B1                   25-08-2011 :     Copy of Certificate cum policy schedule

                                            No.417006/31/12/002250.

 

Ex.B2                   15-10-2011 :     Photostat copy of Insurance Claim intimation

                                            slip No.67178 issued by the opposite party.  

 

Ex.B3                    15-10-2011 :    Copy of Theft Motor claim approval sheet along

                                           with letter addressed by the opposite party to

                                           the complainant.

                                                                          

Id/-                                                                                                        PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

 

Copies to:

 

1)  Sri Md.Rahimkhan, Advocate, Nellore.

 

2)  Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd.,

      Rep. by its Manager, Collection office, Shiram Chit Fund Pvt.Ltd.,

 Indira Bavan Road, Nellore.

 

3) Sri P.V.Mallikarjuna Reddy, Advocate,  24/2/1456, Military Colony,

    1^st line, Dargamitta, Nellore.

 

 

Date when order copies are issued: