Karnataka

Bidar

CC/45/2015

Ashok S/o Sharanappa Marpalli - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager United India Insurance Com.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

P M DESHPANDE

18 Mar 2017

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                            C.C.No. 45/2015

 

                                                                                           Date of filing: 05/06/2015

 

                                                                                     Date of disposal : 18/03/2017

 

 

P R E S E N T:-              (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                                    President.

    

                                      (2) Shri. Shankrappa,(Halipurgi)

                                                                          B.A.LL.B.,

                                                                                     Member.

 

 

COMPLAINANT:          Ashok, S/o Sharnappa, Marpalli,

                                      Age: Major, Occ: Teacher,

                                         R/o Kabirabadwadi, Tq.Humnabad,

                                         Now residing at teacher’s Colony,

                                         Humnabad,Dist.Bidar.

                                          

                                                                                                                                                    

 

 

                                     (By Shri. P.M.Deshpande., Advocate)

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-              The Manager, 

                                       United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,

                                         Prashant House, H.no.22-441,

                                         Behind Syndicate Bank,

                                          Humnabad-585330.

                                       Dist.Bidar.

 

                                   

 

 

                       

                                    ( By Shri.Mansoor Ahmed Khan,Advocate )           

 

 

::   J UD G M E N T  : :

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

                    The complainant is before this Forum filing a complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 against the O.P as described hereunder:-  

 

2.            The complainant is resident of Tq.Humnabad and he is a Teacher, working at Basavakalyan Taluk,Dist.Bidar.  He used to go to school from Humnabad to Basavakalyan by 9.00 a.m. and returns to Humnabad at 6.00 p.m.   As he was in need, of a motor cycle, he  had purchased motor cycle bg.no. KA-39/H-9448 from Kailash Motors, Bidar and the said motor cycle was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. under the policy no. 240682/81/14/0000001068 and the validity of policy from 24/06/2014 to 23/06/2015 and he had   Driving Licence for the period from 15/01/2009 to 11/02/2014.

3.             The complainant avers that while he daily going to attend his duty from Humnabad, he used to take the motor cycle and the said motor cycle used to be parked in the bus stand and on return back, he used to drive the said motor cycle back home.  On 13/02/2015 as usual the complainant had parked his motor cycle at Humnabad Bus stand and when he came back from Basavakalyan by 5 p.m. to take his motor cycle,   he found the motor cycle was stolen.  He immediately complained to the concerned police station Humnabad and also informed the O.P.  The concerned police station Humnabad had registered FIR no.0048/2015 and panchanama was conducted.  Thereafter complainant had approached  the O.P.Company  for  the  claim as the  theft  had taken place.  Thereafter the O.P. has repudiated the claim of the complainant on vague reasons.  Hence, the complainant is before this Forum claiming a sum of Rs.70,000/- against the O.P.

4.                   On service of Court’s notice, the O.P. appeared before this Forum and filed detailed written version.  In the written version the O.P. stated that, the complaint filed by the complainant is misconceived both in law and on fact, and it is not maintainable.   The O.P. has not disputed the particulars furnished in para no.2 of the complaint pertaining to the insured motor cycle and it’s insured with O.P. Company.  The contention of the complaint in para no.3 to 8 are not entirely correct.  The O.P. had no knowledge of theft of insured motorcycle on 13/02/015 till the theft was reported to O.P. Company on 20/02/2015.  Accordingly to the complainant, he had parked his motor cycle in Humnabad bus stand, on 13/02/2015 and went for his duty and when he returned back to Humnabad in the evening he noticed that his motor cycle was stolen.  The Police Station at Humanbad is just abutting the bus stand.  The complainant ought to have given immediate complaint to the police so that the police could alert it’s team and recover the motor cycle.  But, quite surprisingly till 19/02/2015, he did not make any complaint to the Police and it is only on 19/02/2015 when the reported complaint to the Police Station and thereafter on next day i.e. on 20/02/2015 he reported the same to the O.P. Company.  This conduct of the complainant makes the complaint most doubtful as the conduct of the complainant is not natural.  It is not explained by the complainant as to what prevented him from lodging immediate complaint with the police, especially when the police station is situated just adjacent to the bus stand.  It appears that, the complainant has stage managed all events with an ulterior motive to make false claim and cause loss to the O.P. Company.

5.                  The O.P. further avered that on receipt of claim from the complainant, the O.P. Company repudiated the same on justifiable grounds.  Apart from this, still the investigation pertaining to the theft of motor cycle is pending and the police have so far not filed any final report or B-final report or C-final report.  Therefore, unless and until the final report is submitted by the police the claim of the complainant cannot be entertained nor it could  be said that the police is unable to trace the stolen motorcycle.  Thus, the complaint in the present form is premature in nature, since so far the concerned police have not filed any final report.  The claim of the complainant for compensation of Rs.60,000/- and damages of Rs.10,000/- is not tenable in the eye of law since it is still premature, and moreover, the complainant not being entitled in law to make such claim in the absence of final report from the police therefore, the complaint is fit to be dismissed.

6.         Both sides, have filed their evidence affidavits along with documents, written arguments reiterating their respective stands, so also documents listed at the end of this order, distinctly.

 

7.         Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the following points arise for our consideration:-

 

 

1. Does the complainant prove that, there has been a deficiency of service in the part of the Opponent?

-

 

2. What order ?

 

 

 

8.         Our answers to the points stated above are as follows:-

 

1. In the affirmative.
2. As per the final order, for the following:

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                       :: REASONS ::

 

9. Point no.1:-          Primafacie, even though it appears, there is a justification in the repudiation of the opponent as the police complaint was filed after a gap of 6 days of the theft and the opponent was informed of the theft thereafter, we observe, the Insurance company has not read into the lines of the police complaint filed.

 

10.                   In the complaint, the Insured has described his efforts of tracing the stolen (Impulsively) vehicle with the help of his friends in and around Humnabad and ultimately remaining unsuccessful, had lodged the complaint with the jurisdictional police with the aforesaid plausible explanation.  The authorities vested with power of investigation into any crime have ungrudgingly accepted the complaint and consequentially the F.I.R. has been registered.  In the face of the suitable explanations offered by the complainant, notwithstanding the judgements quoted by the opponent and further notwithstanding the opponents’ claim that, the matter of theft is still under investigation and no final report has been filed, a premium paying Insured cannot be expected to wait in eternity to get the just value of his possession(s) stolen or destroyed.  He pays Insurance premium for uncertainties and deserves to be compensated for untoward incidents, which is core issue of obtaining an  Insurance. In the instant case, the Insurer is trying to escape from the liability for which it has accepted the premiums and the same is nothing but deficiency of service and hence we answer point No.1 accordingly.

 

 

11.Point No.2.:-  At one point of time, it is noted, on 01.04.2016, the opponents’ counsel had informed the court for on out of court settlement but on 12.07.2016, ultimately reported the disagreement of the Insurance Co. for settlement proposal.  We decry such blow hot, blow cold attitudes of the Insurance companies adopting cloak and dagger theories.  Opportunist attitudes of state instrumentalities denying the citizens of their rights cannot be endorsed by any court of law and we deplore the same.

 

12.        Now, sitting down to calculate the just entitlements of the complaint/ consumer, we find from Ex.P.8 (Insurance certificate), he has declared the value of the motor vehicle as Rs.25,000/- and his bolstered up claim of Rs.60,000/- towards the same and cost and damages to the tune of additional Rs.10,000/- cannot be entertained and hence we pass the following:-

 

: :   ORDER : :

 

 

1.     The complaint is allowed in part.
2. We hold, the opponent  Insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty five thousand only) (The I.D.V. of the vehicle) to the complainant together with on interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of report of theft i.e., 20.02.2015,till the date of realisation.
3. We further hold, if at any point of time the motor vehicle is traced or recovered, it would be the exclusive property of the Insurance company/opponent to be disposed off in any manner, the opponents thinks proper, subject to compliance of the order at clause(b).
4. The opponent would be liable to pay a litigation expense in a sum of Rs.2500/-(Rs. Two thousand five hundred only) to the complainant.
5. Four weeks time is granted to comply this order.

 

 

   ( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 18^th day of March-2017 )

 

 

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                          Sri. Jagannath Prasad                 

        Member                                                                  President

 

Documents filed by the complainant.

 

1. Ex.P.1- R.C. of vehicle o.KA39/H 9448(copy).
2. Ex.P.2-  F.I.R. and complaint. (c.c.).
3. Ex.P.3- Copy of D.L.
4. Ex.P.4-Copy of voter I.D. Card.
5. Ex.P.5-  Return Bus (Trip) pass.
6. Ex.P.6- Claim by complainant (Copy).
7. Ex.P.7- Receipt of Insurance premium.
8. Ex.P.8- Insurance certificate.
9. Ex.P.9- Repudiation letter (copy).
10. Ex.P.10- Office copy of legal notice.

 

Documents filed by the O.P/s

Nil  

                                                                                         

 

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.,                                          Sri. Jagannath Prasad,                 

        Member                                                                     President.

Sb.