Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/318/2014

Sunil I Kaling. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager of New India Assurance Co-Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Y.K.Divate

09 Mar 2015

ORDER

Order dictated by Smt. S.S. Kadrollimath, Member)

ORDER

          The complainant has filed the complaint u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in insurance service of repudiation of the claim in respect of theft of insured vehicle.

          2) O.Ps. in the version have denied the deficiency in service and justified the repudiation on the ground that there was delay in intimation of the theft and thereby terms and conditions of the policy are violated.

3) Both parties have filed affidavits and certain documents are produced.

          4) We have heard the arguments and also perused the records including written arguments.

5) Now the point for our consideration is that, whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and is entitled to the reliefs sought?

6) Finding on the point is in Affirmative, for the following reasons.

REASONS

          7) It is not in dispute that the complainant was owner of the vehicle K.A-22 EC-877 and it was insured with the O.P. Company for the period of 28/3/2012 to 27/3/2013 and policy No.67110131110100006349.

          8) The complainant has alleged that on 6/8/2012 at about 6-30 P.M. the said vehicle was parked near Behendi Bazaar, Belgaum and later noticed it was missing. The complainant reported the matter of missing to the concerned police station on the same day the police authority postponed the registration of complaint stating that they will search the vehicle in question. The complainant states that therefore there is delay of 11 days in lodging the complaint and thereafter the concerned Malmaruti police station registered the complaint under P.S. Crime No. 240/12 dated 17/8/2014 and submitted C. summary report on 22/4/2014. The complainant further submits that he intimated to the insurance company thereafter and submitted original R.C. card and key of the vehicle, to respondent and filled claim form. The complainant submits that 23/3/2013 and 25/1/2014 the respondent company issued the notice and the opponent endorsed the claim number as 67110131100190000055.  The complainant further submits that the claim was once close and thereafter after submitting the documents the claim was reopen and repudiated the claim alleging that vehicle is sold to one Mr. Abdulrazak Mulla. The complainant submits that he has not sold vehicle to the said person and in R.C. he is name is still appear etc., Hence there is deficiency of service and prayed to pay Rs.24,000/- with 18% P.A. interest.                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

          9) Grievance of the complainant is that, he submitted claim petition to the O.Ps. which has been repudiated and the same is unjust and illegal. The O.Ps. filed objection and admitted that it was insured them as on the date of alleged theft but denied that on 6/8/2012 at about 6.30 P.M. his friend Mr. Abdulkhadar razak Mulla has taken the said vehicle to the parked near Darga and lost due to theft and as approached the market Police Station and gave oral complaint. The O.P. further denied that the Police did not registered the complaint on promise to search the vehicle hence there is delay of 7 days to lodge the complaint. The O.P. further denied that in hurry has closed the claim of the complainant and thereafter again reopen. The O.P. further contended that the insurance policy is a contract between the insurer and insured and abate by the contents of the policy, terms and conditions etc., The O.P. further contended that as per the investigation conducted by the Sri. K.R. Mahesh Kumar, Surveyor and as per the report it is that the complainant has sold the vehicle on 29/5/2012 to Mr. Abdulkhadar razak Mulla through S.K. Auto consultants for the valuable consideration for Rs.36,500/- under receipt No.1128 and of the R.T.O. along with form No.29 and 30 and the complainant has no insurable interest to claim the amount.

          10) The complainant and the O.P. have submitted several documents and also the policy issued by O.P. and also relied on the citation. The O.P. has contended in his objection as mentioned supra, to show that the vehicle has been sold to Mr. Abdulkhadar razak Mulla through the S.K. Auto consultants, as not produced single document before the forum and upon that the complainant has produced the “B” registered extract issued by R.T.O. Belgaum wherein the name of registered owner is mentioned at column No.4 of the extract wherein we can find that the name of the complainant is appearing and there is no name appearing other than the name of the complainant and moreover it has been hypothecated the said bank mentioned at the extract point No.5. The another contention of O.P. that there is delay intimating the company and to the concerned police station is 11 days after the date of the incident of the theft. Hence, the complainant as violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant and the other hand has explained the delay caused in lodging the complaint to the concerned police station and to the company. Hence the contention of O.P. that the vehicle is sold and there is a delay in lodging the complaint and the complainant has no locustandi or insurable interest in the claim cannot be accepted hence set aside. The repudiation dated 25/1/2014 by the O.P. by the O.P. or on the above two points referred supra which are been not sufficiently proved by the O.P. by producing documentary evidence that the vehicle is sold. The complainant has proved that there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. in repudiating the claim of the complainant.

          11)  Counsel for the complainant has relied on the ruling reported in 2014 (2) CPR 4 Chhattisgarh wherein Hon’ble State Commission…………. “It is not proper on the part of the insurance company to repudiated to whole claim of the respondent/complainant only on the ground of delay in intimation…..Insurance Company was required to pay at least compensation on non standard basis to the respondent/complainant……” Considering the decision of the Hon’ble State Commission the delay cannot be a ground for repudiation. The complainant in the case has properly explained the delay caused to him in lodging to the complaint to the concerned Police Station and O.P.

          12) On the other hand, counsel for the O.P. relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission in 2011 (3) CPR 369 NC….. “Insurance-theft of Tractor-Complaint dismissed by State Commission- there was unconscionable delay of over 2 months on the part of the complainant-Insured in intimating delay to the insurance company…..” The O.P. argued that there is a delay in lodging the complaint and violation of policy condition in the present case. The case upon which the O.P. relied supra, in that case the delay was 2 months in intimating to the Insurance Company but in the present case on hand the delay is for 11 days and the same is been explained by the complainant and also relied the decision as already discussed supra. Hence the decision relied by the O.P. and the fact therein are totally different.

          The policy submitted by the complainant shows the IDV value is Rs.28,000/- and as per the claim the complainant is entitled for compensation on non standard basis as per the order;

          13) Considering the facts, evidence on record and the conclusion arrived at, following order:

ORDER

The complaint is partly allowed.

The O.P. is hereby directed to pay 75% of IDV value of the vehicle i.e., Rs. 28,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order,  failing which, amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% P.A. from the date of completing 30 days.

 So also, The O.P. is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.

 (Order dictated, corrected & then pronounced in the Open Forum on this 9th day of March 2015).

          Member                         Member                         President.

gm*