Before the District Forum:Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 23rd day of March, 2005
C.D.No. 99/2004
S.C.Ramaiah Setty,
S/o. S.C.Narasaiah Setty,
Retired Head Master,
R/o Rajput Street,
Besides B.N. Talkies,
Adoni. . . . Complainant represented by his
counselSri J. Lakshminarayana, Advocate
-Vs-
Branch Manager,
The New India Assurance
Company Ltd,
M.M.Road, Adoni,
Kurnool Dist. . . . Opposite party represented by his counsel
Sri L.Hariharanatha Reddy, Advocate
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Hon ble Lady Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay insured amount of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant with 24percent interest per annum, cost of the case and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant s case is that the complainant is the owner of the Maruti Car bearing No. AP 21F 0270 and the said car was insured with opposite party under policy bearing No. 610702/31/2/01182 for the full coverage of the said car and the said policy commenced from 16.9.2002 to 15.9.2003. On 12.5.2003 the complainant s son by name S.Srinivasulu has taken the said car and at late hours parked the said car near his house and in front of one Anjaneya Swamy Temple and on 13.5.2003 as the day broke out the complainant and his son found the car missing. As the complainant is aged and sick person instructed his son to give complaints before the police and the Insurance Company and the complainant s son did the same on that day itself. The Insurance Company gave an endorsement of receipt of information on 13.5.2003 and Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Adoni registered the case under crime No. 39/2003, under section 379 IPC. After completion of Investigation the police closed the case as car is undectable. On 10.10.2003 the complainant s son approached the opposite party and obtained a claim form got it filed
by the complainant and submitted the same on the same day along with required documents and requested to settle his father s claim without any delay. Inspite of repeated requests and demands the opposite party did not settle the claim and on 6.12.2003 the complainant s son got issued Lawyers notice to the opposite party and also a requisition letter dt 6.12.2003 to the Insurance Ombudsmen for early settlement of the claim. On 5.4.2004 the complainant received a letter from opposite party stating that they repudiated the claim of complainant under the said policy and the complainant s son on 17.4.2004 suitablely replied to the said letter. The above said lapsive conduct of opposite party in repudiating the claim of the complainant is amounting to deficiency of service and constrained the complainant to seek redressal in this Forum.
3. Insubstantiation of his case the complainant relied on the following documents Viz (1) Attested Xerox copy of policy bearing No. 610702 /31/02/01182 of the complainant s vehicle (2) Attested Xerox copy of the letter dt 13.5.2003 of Dr S. Srinivasulu (son of the complainant) to the opposite party (3) Attested Xerox copy of the complaint from S.Sreenivasulu ( son of the complainant to the Inspector of Police, Adoni II Town, Adoni (4) Attested Xerox copy of FIR No. 39 dt 13.5.2003 of Adoni II Town Police Station (5) Attested Xerox Form 79 issued by Adoni II Town Police Station Adoni to the ( complainant s son) S.Srinivasulu (6) Attested Xerox copy of notice regarding to the Final Report issued by Judicial Magistrate of I class Adoni to S. Sreenivasulu (7) Attested Xerox copy of legal notice dt 6.12.2003 issued by complainant s counsel to opposite party (8) Attested Xerox copy of reply dt 10.12.2003 given by opposite party to the complainant s counsel and (9) Attested Xerox repudiation of letter dt 5.4.2004 addressed by opposite party to the complainant, besides to the sworn affidavit in reiteration of his complaint avernemnts and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.9 for its appreciation in this case and counsel interrogatories to the opposite party and third party.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filing denial written version questioning the maintainability of the complainant s case either in law or on facts.
5. The written version of opposite party admits the complainant owner of the car bearing No. AP 21 F 0270 and policy was issued to the said car under private car policy “B” Package. It further submits that the house of the complainant is situated in a thickly populated area as such there is no possibility of committing theft of complainant s car and the parking space in front of the complainant house is very congested and there is no possibility of taking the car to the complainant s house, therefore the question of parking the said car in front of his house doesn t arise at all. The complainant and his son gave different versions regarding the place of theft. The complainant s son says the car was stolen when it is parked in front of his house and the complainant says the car was parked near Anjaneya Swamy Temple. The investigating officer made enquires with the relatives of the complainant namely, Mr Gopal Rao, Mr Prakash and Mr Balaji who gave statements stating that the said stolen car was not in possession of complainant since July, 2002 and that the said car was not stolen.
6. It further alleges that the complainant s son forged the signatures of his father and made this false claim and the complaint is not preferred by the complainant and at no point of time the complainant came forward to speak the truth. Hence, the opposite party rightly repudiated the claim on 5.4.2004 and there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite party and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
7. The opposite party in support of its case relied on the following documents Viz (1) policy bearing No. 610702/31/02/01182 of the complainant s vehicle (2) letter dt 13.5.2003 addressed by Dr S.Srinivasulu to the opposite party (3) Certified copy of FIR No. 39 dt 13.5.2003 of Police Station Adoni II Town (4) Certified copy of letter dt 25.8.2003 issued by Andhra Pradesh Police, Adoni (5) Certified copy of notice issued to Judicial Magistrate of I Class Adoni to S.Sreenivasulu (6) R.C regarding to vehicle No. AP 2/ F 270 of complainant s vehicle. (7) Claim Form (8) Bunch of 12 Photographs (9) Confidential Investigation Report dt 2.2.2004 given by Sri G. Thimmarusu Naidu (10) Statement dt 17.01.2004 of K. Prakash to the opposite party (11) Statement dt 22.12.2003 of S.Balaji to the opposite party (12) Statement dt 28.10.2003 of S. Chinna Ramaiah Setty to opposite party (13) letter dt 5.4.2004 of opposite party to the complainant, besides to the sworn affidavit in reiteration of its written version as defence and the above documents are marked as Ex B.1 to B.13 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite party and the third party suitablely replied to interrogatories caused by the complainant.
8. Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is remaining entitled alleging deficiency of service and deficient conduct on part of opposite party:-
9. The replies of the opposite party and third party to the interrogatories caused by the complainant being not in a form of a sworn affidavit as contemplated under Order XI, Rule 8 & 9 of CPC and Appendix- C Form No.3, they are not remaining worthy of consideration.
10. It may be stated that dispute between the parties centers round a simple question as to whether there was theft of the car as alleged by the complainant or there was no theft at all as the said car was parked in thickly populated and there was no theft or dacoity took place as per the opposite party
11. The complainant s son alleges that the said car was parked in front of his house at late hours of 12.5.2003 and they found the vehicle missing on the morning of 13.5.2003 and the matter was immediately reported to police and opposite party and on 10.10.2003 claim form along with all required documents are submitted to opposite party for settling the claim but as against to it the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on 5.4.2004 vide Ex A9/B 13. The main allegation of opposite party is that the said car could not be parked in front of the complainant s house in a small by lane, but in the Ex. A.2 and A.3 the complaints made to opposite party and police, the complainant s son clearly stated that the said car was parked in front of his house and not complainant s house. The other allegation that there was no theft/ dacoity in the area where the complainant and his son are residing, this allegation of opposite party is rejected as theft can occur at any time without anybody s knowledge and just because there was no theft earlier, there is no reason that theft should not occur at any time later.
12. The opposite party further stated that at no point of time the complainant came forward to speak and the claim is not preferred by the complainant/ insured. The complainant was aged and sick person and cannot move as bed ridden, therefore as a legal heir the complainant went to the Police Station and the Insurance Company to file the complaint at the request of the complainant/ insured, therefore the said plea is also rejected.
13. The other plea of opposite party is that the complainant s son informed the police the value of car as Rs.20,000/- only and the complainant is entitled to that amount only, but it is clear that the said car was insured with opposite party for Rs.60,000/- vide Ex A.1/B1. The complainant submitted that after happening of the said event the complainant s son informed the opposite party through his letter dt 13.5.2003 vide Ex A.2/B2 about the theft of the said car and gave a complaint to II Town Police, Adoni, vide Ex A.3 and said police issued an FIR vide Ex A.4/B3. The police after investigation gave a final report as car is undectable vide Ex A.6/B5 issued by Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni, while such is so the opposite party cannot orally say that the said car was not stolen that too without any basis and any evidence.
14. The learned counsel for opposite party relied on Ex B.9 confidential report dt 2.2.2004 of Investigation Officer Sri G.Thimmarasu Naidu, the said investigating officer is of the opinion that the said car of the complainant is not stolen by unknown persons on 12.5.2003 night and the complaint is not real and genuine, and he relied on the statements of complainants relatives namely, Gopal Rao, Prakash and Balaji. From the contents of Ex B.9 and the statements said to have been recorded by the said investigating officer relied by the opposite party doesn t inspire and confidence about the contents of the documents which can be acted upon, no doubt it has been stated by the investigating officer in his report that the statements of complainants relatives are taken during his investigation, but the confidential report in Ex B.9 and the statements recorded are not supported by any affidavit nor by any document what so ever on the record, which could substantiates their allegations. No document or any direct evidence showing that there was no theft of the said car has not been put forth by the opposite party. The opposite party taking several pleas in their written version but failed to substantiate them by placing any documents or any direct evidence. In the absence of any document or any evidence produced on record, primary or secondary regarding the false claim of the complainant, it cannot be said that the opposite party has proved on record that the claim of the complainant is false. The investigating report in Ex B.9 and the three statements of complainant s relatives cannot be looked into nor can it inspire any confidence as they are not supported by any affidavit. Therefore, the opposite party miserablely failed to prove the case by placing any relevant cogent material on record, as mere filling of Investigation Report doesn t mean that the contends there of are necessarily true, no supporting affidavit or any document is placed and mere assertion or oral testimony in respect of false claim by the complainant cannot be relied upon, onus is on the opposite party to substantiate their allegations.
15. Having regard to over all consideration, there is no hesitation to hold opposite party has failed to substantiate that the complainant s claim is a false claim. Therefore in there circumstances, the repudiation of claim by the opposite party is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust and amounts to deficiency of service on their part.
16. The learned counsel for opposite party further submits that even if it is assumed that the opposite party failed to establish their case, still the repudiation of claim was made in good faith having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and after proper investigation. This argument is equally devoid of merit and force as it has already held that repudiation is arbitrary and untenable and the claim of the complainant should not have been rejected.
17. In the light of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant the insured amount of Rs.60,000/- under the policy bearing No. 610702/31/2/01182 with 12percent interest from date of complaint till realization, along with Rs.3,000/- as cost of this case within a month of receipt of this Order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the dictation corrected by us, pronounced in the open court this the 23rd day of March, 2005.
Sd/-
Sd/- PRESIDENT sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
