Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/232/2012

R.Dhananjayan, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd,Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

K.S.Ganesh Babu

11 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

BEFORE :    HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI               PRESIDENT  

                    THIRU.J.JAYARAM                                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER                                                                                                

F.A.NO.232/2012

(Against the order in CC.No.120/2011, dated 07.03.2012 on the file of DCDRF, Chennai (South)

DATED THIS THE 11^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015

 

R.Dhananjayan,

No.123, G.R.Kandigai,

Sirupuzhai Pettai Post,                                                  Appellant / Complainant

Gummidipundi,

Chennai 601 201.

 

                              Vs

 

M/s.Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd,

Rep by its Managing Director,

No.25/26, Prince Towers,                                            Respondent / Opp.party

4^th Floor, College Road,

Chennai 600 006.

 

          This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 28.01.2015 and on hearing the arguments of both sides, and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following order:

Counsel for Appellant/ Complainant     :   M/s.K.S.Ganesh Babu          

Counsel for Respondent/ Opposite party : M/s.M.B.Gopalan  

 

J.JAYARAM,  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This appeal is filed by the Complainant / Appellant against the order of the District Forum, Chennai (South) in CC.No.120/2011 dated 07.03.2012, dismissing the complaint.

 

2.       The case of the complainant is that he had taken a policy with the opposite party insuring his TATA mini lorry and during the subsistence of the policy the lorry was lost in theft ON 9.2.2010 and his claim was repudiated by the opposite party, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint.

3.       According to the opposite party their investigation revealed that the lorry was already sold to one G.Ramesh and the above said G.Ramesh is the actual owner of the vehicle on the date of accident and the complainant had no insurable interest in the lorry.  Further the alleged theft took place on 9.2.2010, whereas the incident has been intimated to the opposite party only on 19.5.2010 after a delay of about 3 months which is a violation of the policy condition.  No due intimation was given to the opposite party regarding the sale of the vehicle and the name change of ownership and the change of ownership of the vehicle was not recorded in the policy and RC.  Therefore there is violation of policy conditions and the claim was repudiated by the opposite party for valid reasons and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

4.       The District Forum considered the rival contentions and dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

5.       Aggrieved by the impugned order the complainant has preferred this appeal.

6.       It is contended by the complainant / appellant that he did not sell his lorry to one G.Ramesh as alleged by the opposite party though they have entered into a sale agreement.  It  is contended  by the  opposite party / respondent that the lorry was

 

sold to one G.Ramesh and change of ownership was not intimated to the opposite party and they have not changed the ownership in the policy and the RC book and thus there is violation of the policy conditions and hence the complainant’s claim was repudiated.

7.       Though the complainant contended that the above said G.Ramesh is the driver and they have only entered into sale agreement and the sale is not completed; but the complainant has not produced the so called sale agreement before the District Forum and there are no materials on record to establish that it is only a sale agreement.  The sale letter is filed as part of Ex.B3 by the opposite party which discloses that the lorry is sold to one G.Ramesh on 9.11.2009 and so the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle.  As already stated that the change of ownership has not been effected in the Policy and the RC Book.

8.       Further the incident is reported to the opposite party only after about 3 months after the incident, whereas the matter must have been reported to the opposite party immediately after the occurrence, as per the condition of the policy and so there is violation of the policy condition.

9.       Furthermore, we have to note that admittedly the G.Ramesh the driver/owner of the vehicle left the key in the lorry and he went for dinner, forgetting to take the key from the lorry.  This has facilitated easy theft of the lorry and the act of the driver in not taking the key from the lorry and leaving the key in the lorry itself while going out for dinner amounts to gross negligence on the part of the driver, which has led to the theft of the lorry.

 

 

9.       For the aforesaid reasons we hold that the claim has been repudiated by the opposite party for valid reasons and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. There is no merit in the appeal.

10.               In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint.  No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

J.JAYARAM                                                                R.REGUPATHI

(J)MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT