Karnataka

Gadag

CC/26/2015

Ramraddi Hanamraddi Rangraddiyavar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manger The New India Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

S.P.Shettar

27 Aug 2016

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY

SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT:

The complainant has filed this Complaint against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred in short as OPs) u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against OPs. 

2.  The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant is an agriculturist and owns a tractor and trailer for agricultural purpose. The tractor and trailer had been insured with Ops bearing No.67200231130100000527 which is valid from 23.05.2013 to 22.05.2014. On 05.01.2014, the trailer which was parked behind the Complainant’s house was stolen by someone, Complainant tried to trace the trailer till 09.01.2014 the Complainant approached Naragund Police Station and filed a missing Complaint of trailer bearing No.KA-26 TA-3317 and also informed to the OP’s  Agent and Development Officer of the Ops, but the Ops have not responded properly, on 31.03.2015 the Complainant submitted that he wrote a letter to OP No.1 along with FIR, B-Extract and other necessary documents, for the insurance claim of the trailer on 23.06.2015, the OP No.1 informed the Complainant that the claim for theft of trailer bearing No.KA-26 TA 3317 is repudiated with a reason of delay. Hence, the Ops have committed deficiency in service for which the Complainant had suffered mentally and financially. The Complainant had prayed to order the OPs to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards the theft and Rs.10,000/- towards the loss and damages.

 

3.      The Forum registered the Complaint and notices were issued to OPs. The OPs appeared before the Forum and filed Objections.

Brief facts of the Written Version of OPs:

The OPs have denied the contents made in the Complaint by the Complainant and states that the theft of the vehicle was on 05.01.2014 as per the F.I.R. the Complainant had not filed the Complaint immediately this was a lapse of four days even the explanation was also not been given by the Complainant for the delay. Further, the OP has stated that notice should be given in written on the occurrence of any accident loss or damages thereafter the insured will be informed and assist as the OP shall require whereas the Complainant had delayed for one year 03 months to inform the OP about the accident of the vehicle.

 

4.      OP had stated that the investigation done by the Dharwad Division Office on 28.04.2015 and report was submitted by the investigator on 15.05.2015. On the observations of the report, it is found that the intimation of the theft was given to the OPs after gap of one year three months which is the violation of the policy condition on the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, the claim of the Complainant is repudiated.

 

5.      The OP had submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

6.      On the back ground of the above said pleadings, the Complainant himself examined before this Forum as CW-1 and produced 07 documents. They are:

1) EX C1 FIR

2) EX C2 Copy of the Policy Sheduled,

3) EX C3 B-Extract,

4) EX C4 Letter to the OP by the Complainant,

5) EX C5 Letter to the Complainant by the OP,

6) EX C6 Order Sheet,

7) EX C7 Charge Sheet

On the other hand, OP No.1 filed a Chief Affidavit and the documents produced by Ops. Attested copies of the documents filed by OPs are 14 in numbers.

1. Attested copy of the Complaint
2. Attested copy of the FIR,
3. Attested copy of Charge Sheet.
4. Attested copy of C-Report,
5. Attested copy of R.C.
6. Attested copy of Letter given by the Complainant to OP.
7. Attested copy of Voter I.D.
8. Attested copy of D.L.
9. Attested copy of Letter to OP
10. Attested copy of Universal Claim Investigators letter,
11. Photocopies of photos (14 in Nos.),
12. Repudiation Letter,
13. Photo copy of acknowledgement,
14. Attested copy of Certificate of Insurance   

 

7.      On the basis of above said pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudications are as follows:   

1.   2.   3.	Whether the Ops prove that the repudiation of claim is justifiable?   Whether the Complainant is entitled for relief as sought?   What Order?

        Our Answer to the above Points are:-

Point No.1 – Affirmative,

Point No.2 – Negative,

Point No.3 – As per the final order.

                

R E A S O N S

 8.  POINT NO.1 and 2:  As both points are inter related hence taken together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of fact, evidence. On perusal of pleading, evidence coupled with the documents on record with respective parties. It is the case of the Complainant that the Complainant had purchased a trailer bearing No.KA-26 TA-3317 insured with the Ops, the said trailer was stolen when it was parked behind the Complainant house on 05.01.2014. It has last seen by the Complainant on 04.01.2014 evening. The Complainant tried to trace the trailer but untraced. On 09.10.2014, the Complainant lodged a Complaint with Naragund Police Station under Crime No.05/2014. The Complainant had said in his Complaint that the fact of the theft was informed the Agent and Development Officer, but they had not responded.

 

9.     Further, the Complainant had written a letter to OP claiming the insurance on 31.03.2015. OP had repudiated the claim stating the reason that the intimation of the theft was given to the OP after a gap of one year three months which is the violation of the policy condition. OP in his Written Version states that the Complainant had lodged a Complaint after lapse of four days and intimation of theft had been given to the OP after a gap of one year three months. In case of theft where there is no bodily injury has been caused it is in combined upon the Complainant (insured) to inform the insurer within 48 hours. So that insurer can coordinate and cooperate with police to trace the stolen vehicle, whereas in this case the Complainant had lodged a police Complaint after four days and inform the insurer after a long period of delay of one year three months which is breach of policy condition as stated by the Complainant that he had informed the Agent and Development Officer immediately but no documents had been produced by the Complainant to prove the same. Hence, we rely upon citations.

1) III (2016) CPJ 408 (NC) National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., V/s Naresh Walia). It reads as under:

     “(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2 (1) (g), 21 (b) – Insurer – Theft – Delay in intimation – Claim repudiated – Alleged deficiency in service – Report of theft must be lodged immediately – Intimation of Insurance Company must be given immediately – Breach of policy conditions established – Repudiation justified”

                 

2) II (2013) CPJ 726 (NC) National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (New India Assurance Company Ltd., Anr.) V/s Harpreet Singh). It reads as under:

     “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2 (1) (g), 21 (b) – Insurance – Theft of vehicle – Delay in intimation – Claim repudiated – Alleged deficiency in service – District Forum dismissed Complaint – State Commission allowed appeal – Hence revision – Vehicle was stolen on 10.8.2002 and FIR was got registered on 13.8.2002 – Intimation about theft of vehicle was given to petitioner only on 10.10.2002 – Delay of two months in informing petitioner about theft of insured vehicle – Violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy – Impugned order set aside.”

 

Hence, we are in view that the Complainant had violated the policy condition the repudiation of the claim by the OP is justifiable. Hence, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief since we answer affirmative to Point No.1 and Negative for Point No.2.  

 

10.   POINT NO.3:   For the reasons and discussion made above and finding on the above points, we proceed to pass a following:  

 

//ORDER//

1. This Complaint is dismissed. No orders on costs.
2. Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 27^th day of August, 2016).

 

 Member                                        President