Date of Filing:14/07/2016
Date of Order: 20/04/2017
ORDER
BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT
1. This is the complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred in short as O.Ps) alleging deficiency in service and praying for direction to the O.Ps to honour the insurance policy bearing No.:0100911025 and the claim No:0820013143 and further O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation to the complainant.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that:
The complainant submits that, he had purchased the Ashok Leyland commercial vehicle bearing No.TN-70-F-2136 and the same was being used for transportation of goods and in order to earn his livelihood. The said vehicle was purchase by availing financial assistance from Cholamandalam Finance and the vehicle was insured with the O.Ps vehicle for the period from 9.2.2015 to 8.2.2016 and the O.Ps declared the value of the vehicle to an amount of Rs.11,70,000/-. The complainant states that, on 13.03.2015 when the said vehicle had parked in between Sarjapur to Bagalur road near SRI brick factory and got it locked and handed over the keys to the complainant. Later on 14.03.2015 the said vehicle was not found there at the spot where it was parked. Then the complainant made efforts and enquired to trace out the vehicle, but he could not find the same. On the same day the complainant was lodged a complaint with police and registered the case bearing Crime No.65/2015 on 18.03.2015 and also intimated the said information of the theft of the vehicle to the O.p.No.1 office and submitted the FIR copy and also filed the claim form to the O.p.No.1 to enforce the insurance claim.
3. Further complainant submits that, the police authorities got done the investigation and finally filed a ‘C’ report by stating that the vehicle is not traceable on 9.9.2015 and the same was also intimated to the complainant. The complainant states that instead of honouring the claim O.ps repudiated the claim on the ground of violation of conditions of the insurance policy. Further complainant states that O.Ps No.1 informed that in order to file the claim papers there should be an FIR copy attached or a police complaint and thereon complainant got submitted the FIR copy and there is no violation of the alleged condition. Hence complainant alleging the deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps and filed this complaint.
4. Upon issuance of notice, O.Ps appeared through its counsel and filed its version. In the version it is contended that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further O.p.No.1 and 2 being the zonal office and corporate office respectively are one and the same. The vehicle was insured with O.p on the date and time of the alleged incident and the liability of the O.p is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Further O.P has received intimation about the theft of the vehicle on 19.3.2015 and the O.p on receipt of the information as registered the claim and called for necessary documents from the complainant to process the claim. On going through the documents submitted by the complainant it was noticed that the vehicle was stolen on 13.05.2015 and the complainant filed the police complaint on 18.03.2015. and there was a delay of five days on the part of the complainant in filing the complaint to the police station. Further there was also delay of six days in giving intimation to the O.P. Further O.P contended that, delay in filing the complaint to the police station and giving intimation of theft to the insurance company is in violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The O.P gave sufficient opportunity to the complainant to explain the reasons with an intention to examine the facts but O.P was not satisfied with the reasons explained by the complainant. Hence the O.P repudiated the claim made by the complainant in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. On the other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In order to substantiate the case of the parties and the both parties have filed their affidavit evidence. Also heard the arguments.
6. On the basis of the pleadings and the evidence on record, the following points will arise for our consideration is:-
(A) Whether the complainant has proves
deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
(B) Whether the complainant is entitled to
the relief prayed for in the complaint?
(C) What order?
7. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT (A) and (B): In the Negative.
POINT (C): As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
POINT No.(A)& (B):-
8. On perusing the pleading of the parties it is not in dispute that the vehicle i.e. Ashok Leyland commercial vehicle bearing No.TN-70-F-2136 was insured with the O.Ps. Further it is also not in dispute that, when the vehicle was theftedout the insurance police was inforce. On perusal of the insurance policy it insured for the period from 9.2.2015 to 8.2.2016 and the O.Ps declared the value of the vehicle to an amount of Rs.11,70,000/-.
9. On perusal of the FIR it also discloses that the complainant lodged the police complaint on 18.03.2015 with the jurisdictional police regarding theft of his vehicle. On perusal of the copy of the FIR at ink page No.11 it discloses that on 13.03.2015 the vehicle was thefted out, whereas the complainant lodged the police complaint on 18.03.2015 it clearly discloses that the complainant after five days delay of alleged theft lodged the complaint before the jurisdictional police. On perusal of final report at ink page No.14 discloses that there was no reason assigned for delay in lodging the complaint. Hence, the counsel for the O.P vehemently argued that, for the reasons best known to the complainant he did not intimate the insurance company immediately after the theft and hence the claim of the complainant got repudiated.
10. Further on perusing the terms and conditions of the policy, as per condition No.1 of the policy it reads thus:-
“Notice shall be given writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidentals loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the assured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded of the company immediately on receipt by the insures. Notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the policies and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender.”
11. Further advocate for the O.p relied on many reported decisions in respect of the case on hand. On perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble National commission reported in I(2014) CPJ 350 wherein which it was held that:
“Delay in lodging FIR and insured informed the police three days after the incident of theft it is held to be violation of terms and conditions of the policy.”
12. Also on perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission decided in the case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Jayaprakash it was reported in 2016 (I) CPR 767 the Hon’ble National Commission held that:
“Insured is under contractual obligation to intimate theft of vehicle to the insurer immediately.”
13. On perusal of the evidence placed before us and in the light of above decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission, the complainant did not lodge the police complaint immediately after noticing of the theft of the vehicle and there was delay of five days in lodging the police complaint and also there was delay six days intimating the insurance company. Under the circumstances, the law will not lend its helping hand who ever slept over their rights. Therefore, we reached to conclusion that insurance is a contract and both parties should avail to the terms and conditions of the contract. Hence the complainant himself failed to intimate the concerned jurisdictional police and insurance company regarding the theft of the vehicle immediately and hence complainant failed prove the deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and the complainant is not entitled for any relief as sought in the complaint. Accordingly, we answered these points in the negative.
POINT (C):
14. On the basis of the findings given on the point No.(A) and (B) and in the result, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
- The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
- Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 20th Day of April 2017)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
*Rak
