By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
1.The complaint in short is as follows: -
1. The case of complainant is that she is the registered owner of Maruthi Ertiga Vehicle bearing registration number KL-10-.AM- 5225. The vehicle was insured with the opposite party vide policy number 98000031160104526973, which is covered from 07-11/ 2016 to 06/11/2017. The IDV of the vehicle was Rs.436109. On 15/12/2016 at about 2PM when the vehicle was parked by the complainant’s son Nikhil Lawrence on Munduparamba - Kavungal bypass road, the vehicle was stolen. Immediately the son of complainant preferred a complaint before the Malappuram police station and they registered the complaint as crime number 753/2016 under section 379 and 201 r/w 34 IPC. The police conducted a detailed enquiry and filed a report before the JFCM Court Malappuram. The Police could not find out the vehicle. Thereafter the complainant submitted claim form before the opposite party for getting the insurance benefit. But the opposite party repudiated the clam by a letter dated 16/06/2020 stating that as per the FIR the key of the vehicle was kept in vehicle itself at the time of theft and thereby the insured violated the policy condition number 4. The complainant alleges that the opposite party arbitrarily repudiated the claim. The complainant or her son has not stated that the key was kept in the vehicle at the time of theft. The contention in the repudiation letter is illegal and against policy condition. Hence the complaint approached this Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and claiming the insured sum and compensation of RS.80,000/ and cost of Rs.15,000/-.On admission of complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and on receipt of notice opposite entered appearance and filed version denying the allegations of the complainant.
2. The opposite party admitted that the vehicle was insured with the opposite party as alleged in the complainant. But the opposite denied the allegation that the opposite party denied the claim arbitrarily stating that the complainant had kept the key inside the car, and there is no clause in the policy to repudiate the claim. As per policy condition which clearly stipulate that the insured shall take all responsible steps to safe guard the vehicle from loss or damage. But in this complaint, it is clear from the document that the complainant has not kept the vehicle securely locked when not in use i.e at the time of loss of vehicle. It is pertinent to note the ignition key was kept in the key slot. The opposite party contented that the vehicle was stolen due to the negligence of the representative of the insured and so the insurer cannot be made liable.
3. The opposite party stoutly oppose the claim of complainant that he is entitled Rs. 4,36,109/- towards IDV with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from 15/12/2016 till realisation and 80,000/- rupees compensation and cost of rupees 15,000/. The opposite party denied the allegation of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and prayed dismissal of complaint with cost of the opposite party.
4. The complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext A1 to A3. Documents on the side of opposite party marked as Ext B1 to B3. Ext A1 is copy of FIR No753/2016 of Malappuram police station along with final report. Ext A2 is copy of certificate cum policy schedule, Ext A3 is copy of repudiation letter dated 19/06/2020. Ext B1 is copy of policy schedule cum certificate of insurance. Ext B2 is copy of FIR NO.753/16, Malappuram police station. Ext B3 is copy of investigation report of insurance investigator Mr.George Thattil dated 20/11/19.
Heard both side, perused affidavit and documents. Following points arise for consideration-
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
- Relief and cost?
5. Points 1and 2
The opposite party admitted that the vehicle involved in this complaint is insured with the opposite party during the relevant period as stated by the complainant. But the opposite party denied the insurance coverage stating violation of policy condition. According to opposite party the policy holder is responsible to safe guard the vehicle from loss or damage. In this complaint at the time of theft the complainant had kept the ignition key in the key slot and thereby violated the policy condition clause 4. But the opposite party could not produce any document to substantiate the contention of violation of policy condition by the complainant. The opposite party denied the insurance coverage solely depending the report of the insurance investigator Ext B3, and statement given to the police officer for which there is no evidentiary value and that is not properly proved also. Moreover, it can be seen that the incident took place in a day time at about 2 P.M hours. The vehicle was stopped in front of a shop to purchase certain articles and within short time the vehicle was stolen. So, the allegation absence care in keeping vehicle is without any merit. Hence, we find the denial of insurance coverage to the vehicle is without any justification and amounts deficiency in service. Though the complainant approached the opposite party with proper documents the opposite denied the insurance. The complainant contented that she suffered mental agony and inconvenience and so prays for compensation and cost in addition to the insured amount. It is admitted the IDV of the vehicle is Rs. 4,36,109/-. We consider Rs. 50,000/- as reasonable amount as compensation. Rs.5,000/- is fixed as cost of the proceedings. The complainant is entitled the IDV value with 9% interest from the date of filing this complaint till payment.
Hence, we allow this complaint as follows: -
1. The opposite party is directed to Pay Rs 4,36,109/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing this complaint till payment.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the
complainant.
3. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost to the complainant.
The opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the opposite party is liable to pay interest on the above said amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing to till date of payment.
Dated this the 20th day of October, 2022.
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A3
Ext.A1: copy of FIR NO 753/2016 of Malappuram police station along with final report.
Ext.A2: copy of certificate cum policy schedule,
Ext A3: copy of repudiation letter dated 19/06/2020
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1 to B3
Ext.B1: copy of policy schedule cum certificate of insurance.
Ext.B2: copy of FIR NO.753/16, Malappuram police station.
Ext.B3: copy of investigation report of insurance investigator Mr.George Thattil dated 20/11/19.
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER
