BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Thursday the 23rd day of August, 2012
C.C.No.141/2011
Between:
Y.Nagarjuna Reddy, S/o Y.Maddi Reddy,
R/o H.No.87/465, Sree Nagar Colony, Kurnool Town and District - 518 004.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,
Rep. by its Branch Manage,
Shop No. 9,10,11, 2nd floor, S.V. Complex,Kurnool - 518 002.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,Rep. by its Branch Manager,
H.No.6467, D.No.3-6-111/8, 2nd Floor, Far East Plaza, Street No.18,
Main Road, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 029.
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Regional Manager,
H.No.G1-F2, GE Plaza, Air Port Road, Yerawada, Pune - 411 006.
...Opposite ParTies
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.L.Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri.A.V.Subramanyam, Advocate for opposite parties 1 to 3 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President) C.C. No.141/2011
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay the assured amount of Rs.27,800/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of theft of vehicle of the insured;
- To award compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant at the deficient conduct of the opposite parties;
- To award costs of Rs.5,000/-;
And
- To pass such other reliefs as the Honourable Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant was the owner of the Motor Cycle bearing No.AP21 L 5548. The said Motor Cycle was insured with opposite party No.2 under policy bearing No.OG/09/1806/1802/00005237. The policy was in force from 27-08-2008 to 26-08-2009. The vehicle was insured for Rs.27,800/-. On 30-06-2009 at about 9.00 P.M. the complainant parked his Motor Cycle duly locked in front of Jana Priya, Hotel, Kurnool. After completion of dinner in Jana Priya Hotel the complainant came out and found his Motor Cycle missing. The complainant searched- for the vehicle but in vain. The complainant gave a report to police on 13-07-2009. Two Town Police Station Registered a case in Crime No.290/2009 Under Section 379 I.P.C. Immediately after Registration of the case the complainant informed about the theft of his Motor Cycle and submitted claim form along with relevant documents on 10-11-2009. On 16-01-2010 the complainant sent a reminder letter to the opposite parties praying to settle the claim. But opposite party No.2 sent a letter dated 06-02-2010 to the complainant requesting to furnish clarification. Before receiving the said letter the complainant sent another reminder letter dated 07-02-2010 to opposite party No.2 for settlement of the claim. But opposite party No.2 sent a letter dated 17-02-2010 stating that the complainant has not given satisfactory reply for the letter dated 06-02-2010 and that the claim is repudiated. There is deficiency of service and gross negligence on the part of the opposite parties in settling the claim. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.2 filed written version and the same is adopted by opposite parties 1 and 3. It is stated in the written version of opposite party No.2 that the complaint is not maintainable. The dispute between the parties is not a Consumer dispute. The complainant insured his Motor Cycle bearing No.AP21 L 5548 with opposite party No.2 under policy bearing No.OG/09/1806/1802/00005237 for the period from 27-08-2008 to 26-08-2009. As per the terms and conditions of the policy in case of any accidental loss or damage there should be immediate intimation to the company. Further there should be immediate complaint to the police in case of theft of the vehicle. In the present case the complainant’s vehicle was stolen on 30-06-2009. The complainant gave report to Police leisurely on 13-07-2009 i.e., after 14 days from the date of theft of vehicle. The complainant also failed to give information about the theft of the vehicle immediately to the insurance company. The complainant informed about the theft of the insured vehicle to the insurance company after 13-07-2009. There is clear violation of policy terms and conditions by the complainant. Further after receiving the theft information the opposite party No.2 appointed investigator to investigate in to theft of the vehicle. The complainant gave statement to the investigator in writing stating that on the date of the theft of the vehicle he left the ignition key to his Motor Cycle only and went inside the hotel to have dinner. The complainant was negligent in leaving the ignition key to the Motor Cycle leading to theft of the Motor Cycle. The complainant handed over one ignition key to the opposite party. It means that other ignition key was kept with the insured Motor Cycle. The complainant failed to take minimum precautions while going to dinner. After verification of documents and taking into consideration the circumstance surrounding, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated. There was no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is not maintainable. Previously the complainant filed CC.No.38/2011 and later it was not pressed. The present complaint is filed with same allegation. This complaint is barred by principle of Resjudicata. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A10 are marked and sworn affidavit of the first complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 to B8 are marked and sworn affidavit of opposite party No.2 is filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. POINTS i and ii:- Admittedly the complainant insured his Motor Cycle bearing No.AP21 L 5548 with opposite party No.2 under the original of Ex.A1 policy for the period from 27-08-2008 to 26-08-2009. It is the case of the complainant that on 30-06-2009 at about 9.00 P.M. his vehicle was committed theft when it was parked in front of Jana Priya Hotel, Kurnool. The complainant in his sworn affidavit clearly stated that his vehicle was committed theft on 30-06-2009 and that he gave report to police on 13-07-2009. Ex.A2 is the copy of the F.I.R. It is stated in Ex.A2 F.I.R. that the vehicle of the complainant was committed theft on 30-06-2009 when it was parked in front of Jana Priya Hotel, Kurnool. Admittedly on the intimation given by the complainant about the theft of his vehicle opposite party No.2 appointed investigator. Ex.B3 is the investigator’s report. It is mentioned in the investigators report that on enquiry it was confirmed that the theft of the vehicle of the complainant was genuine. The contents of Ex.A2 and Ex.B3 go to show that the Motor Cycle of the complainant was committed theft by unknown offenders on 30-06-2009 when it was parked in front of Jana Priya Hotel, Kurnool. The said theft took place when the policy was in force.
8. The complainant filed present complaint claiming assured amount of Rs.27,800/-. It is the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy and that the complainant is not entitled for assured amount under the policy. As per conditions No.1 of the policy that notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately after the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage. According to the complainant his vehicle was committed theft on 30-06-2009. The complainant did not give intimation about the theft of his vehicle immediately to the insurance company. He sent the intimation about the theft of the vehicle to the insurance company subsequent to 13-07-2009. There was delay of 14 days in giving intimation about the theft of the vehicle to the insurance company. It is also mentioned in condition No.1 of Ex.B1 policy that in case of theft of the vehicle the insured shall give immediate notice to the police. The vehicle was committed theft on 30-06-2009. As seen from Ex.A2 it is very clear that the complainant gave report about the theft of his vehicle on 13-07-2009. The complainant violated condition No.1 of the policy. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties that the complainant is not entitled for the assured amount as he violated the condition No.1 of the policy. In support of his contention he relied on decision in First Appeal No.321/2005 dated 09-12-2009 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, where in it is held that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. after 2 days of the coming to know of the theft and 9 days to the Insurance Company, can be fatal, as in the meantime, the car could have travelled a long distance or may have been dismantled by that time and sold to Kabaadi. Admittedly in the present case there was delay of 14 days in giving intimation about the theft of the vehicle to the company. The police report was lodged on 13-07-2009. The complainant didt comply the condition No.1 of the policy. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that mere delay in lodging F.I.R. does not absolves Insurance Company from its contractual liability. He relied on a decision reported in 2005 (1) CPR 364 (SC) to that effect. The said decision was rendered by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. In view of the decision of the National Commission cited above we have no other go except to say that the complainant not followed the condition No.1 of the policy.
9. According to the complainant his vehicle was committed theft when it was parked in front of Jana Priya Hotel, Kurnool. According to the opposite parties the complainant did not take care of locking the Motor Cycle when he went inside the Jana Priya Hotel, for dinner. Admittedly after receiving the intimation about the theft of vehicle opposite party No.2 appointed an investigator. The investigator filed report Ex.B3 dated 01-02-2010. The investigator is an independent person and nothing can be said against him. In Ex.B3 it is stated that the complainant confirmed in writing that he forgot to lock the vehicle and kept the key with the vehicle. Ex.B2 is the declaration form along with statement of the complainant. In the statement the complainant clearly admitted that on the date of the theft of the vehicle he left ignition key to the Motor Cycle. It is a clear indication that the insured did not take care to safeguard the vehicle from committing theft. There was negligence on the part of the complainant in leaving the vehicle unlocked in front of the Hotel. The complainant also not complied condition No.4 of the policy. In decision reported in II (2008) C.P.J. 182 NC it is held that leaving the vehicle left unattended with ignition key lying on dash board is a violation of the condition of the policy. In the present case also as seen from the evidence available it is clear that the complainant parked his motor Cycle in front of the Hotel keeping the ignition key with the Motor Cycle. The complainant negligently left the vehicle out side the Hotel and went inside the Hotel for dinner on 30-06-2009. The complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The opposite parties rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. No deficiency of service is found on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed.
10. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 23rd day of August, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nill For the opposite parties : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of Policy bearing No.OG-09-1806-1802-00005237
dated 02-04-2009.
Ex.A2. Photo copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.230/2009 dated 13-07-2009
issued by Station House Officer, Kurnool – II Town P.S.
Ex.A3 Office copy of Letter dated 14-07-2009 issued by complainant
to opposite party No.1.
Ex.A4 Office copy of Letter dated 30-08-2009 issued by complainant
to opposite party No.1 along with Courier Receipt.
Ex.A5 Office copy of Letter dated 10-11-2009 issued by complainant
to opposite party No.2 along with Courier Receipt.
Ex.A6 Notice to the complainant dated 28-12-2009.
Ex.A7 Office copy of Reminder Letter dated 16-01-2010 along with
Courier Receipt.
Ex.A8 Letter dated 06-02-2010 issued by opposite party No.2 to
complainant.
Ex.A9 Office copy of Letter dated 07-02-2010 issued by complainant
to opposite party No.2 along with Courier Receipt.
Ex.A10 Letter dated 17-02-2010 issued by opposite party No.2 to
complainant.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Office copy of Policy bearing No.GO-09-1806-1802-00005237
dated 02-04-2009 along with terms and conditions.
Ex.B2 Declaration Form dated 26-01-2010 along with letter.
Ex.B3 Investigator Report dated 01-02-2010.
Ex.B4 Photo copy of Letter dated 17-09-2009 issued by
opposite party No.2 to complainant along with Courier Receipt.
Ex.B5 Photo copy of Reminder Letter dated 27-10-2009.
Ex.B6 Photo copy of Final Reminder Letter dated 09-11-2009 along
with Postal Acknowledgement.
Ex.B7 Photo copy of Letter dated 06-02-2010 along with Postal
Acknowledgement.
Ex.B8 Photo copy of Letter dated 17-02-2010 along with Postal
Acknowledgement.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
