Date of Filing: 24/08/2011
Date of Order: 15/09/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 15th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 1567 OF 2011
Mr. Ranganath P,
S/o. Dodda Papanna,
Kurumakanahalli Village,
Thadigol (P), Srinivaspur (t),
Kolar (d).
(Rep. by Advocate Sri.Eugene Prabhu) Complainant.
-V/s-
(1) The Chairman,
IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited,
IFFCO Sadan C1 Distt. Centre,
Saket, New Delhi-110 017.
(2) The Manager,
IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited,
Customer Service Centre, KSCMF Building,
3rd Floor, 3rd Block, No.8, Cunningham Road,
Bangalore-560 052.
(3) C.V.S.R. Sharma,
Claim Manager, (South),
IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited,
Sri Shanthi Towers, 5th Floor, # 141,
3rd Main, East of NGEF Layout, Kasturi Nagar,
Bangalore-560 043. Opposite parties.
BY SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
ORDER
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant made Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.33,000/-, are necessary:-
The complainant has insured his TVS XL Super HD vehicle bearing No. KA-07-R-4568, make 2010 with the opposite party under policy No. 73392569 which was valid between 13.07.2010 to 12.07.2011. The vehicle was stolen on 01.10.2010 in front of M/s. Pavan Hospital, Srinivasapur at 6.15 pm. It was brought to the notice of the opposite party through Toll Free Number who was asked to give the complaint. Though the complaint was given on the next date the police registered the case on 20.11.2010 in Crime No.212/2010 and charge-sheet was laid in C.C. No.3/2011. It was brought to the notice of the opposite party on 08.12.2010 for which a vague reply was issued. Hence the complainant issued a notice to the opposite party on 02.07.2011, as it has not been complied with this complaint is filed.
2. Heard.
3. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
- Whether there is any prima facie case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice?
- What order?
4. Our findings on the above points are:-
Point (A) & (B):As per the final order
For the following:-
REASONS
POINT (A) to (B):-
5. Reading the complaint in conjunction with the documents on record, it is established that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No. KA-07-R-4568 a TVS Heavy Duty two wheeler vehicle which was insured with the opposite party under policy No. 73392569 and the insurance was valid between 13.07.2010 to 12.07.2011. The vehicle was stolen on 01.10.2010. According to him he informed it to the opposite party through Toll Free Number and as per the directions he lodged a complaint to the jurisdictional police on the next day, but the jurisdictional police registered the case on 20.11.2010 and filed a charge-sheet in C.C. No.3/2011, he intimated the same and the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant, he issued notice and hence he filed this compliant.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant when questioned to which number he had telephoned, the learned counsel answered that the said telephone number was out of order, hence he did not make any telephone call to the opposite party. In this regard further the learned counsel for the complainant was asked what is the proof to show that he lodged a complaint on 01.10.2010 to the police? He replied that, since the complainant is an illiterate man, police wrote the compliant. The complaint given to the police which has been produced by the complainant reads thus:-
That is to say the police has not recorded the complaint of the complainant, but the complainant had taken the typed complaint to the police on 20.11.2010 at 10.30 AM. That means the complainant has not lodged any complaint on 01.10.2010 or on 02.10.2010. It also proves that the complainant had not intimated it to the opposite party about the theft of the vehicle from 01.10.2010 till 20.11.2010.
7. Further the complainant had stated that the police have filed the charge-sheet in CC No.3/2011. No copy of charge-sheet is filed by the complainant before this Forum. The complainant has produced only the copy of ‘C’ report and the ‘C’ report has been intimated to the complainant on 29.04.2011 and the same was accepted by the Magistrate. That means up to 30.04.2011. That means the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. If the charge-sheet is filed then only the C.C. Number will be given; if the charge-sheet is filed the vehicle is traced. Hence it cannot be no vehicle.
8. Further on what date the complainant had made the claim before the opposite party by intimating the theft is not at all whispered by the complainant. The complainant has produced the repudiation letter dated: 08.12.2010 which reads thus:-
That is to say the complainant has intimated the theft of the vehicle to the opposite party on 25.112010 and not earlier thereto. After lapse of 56 days the terms of the vehicle has been intimated not immediately in writing. But in this case after lapse of 56 days the theft has been intimated. Hence the opposite party has rightly repudiated and there is no illegality in it. When this question was put to the learned counsel for the complainant regarding the policy conditions the learned counsel simply stated that, he has been issued only policy and the policy conditions is not known to him. This is nothing but an untenable contention.
9. That means the complainant violated the terms of the policy in not intimating the theft at least within 45 hours from the time of theft. Hence the opposite party rightly repudiated the claim. In a case between the Oriental Insurance Company Limited –V/s- Sri. Jagadish in Appeal No.211/2011 dated: 24.08.2011 the Hon’ble State Commission at Para-7 and 8 has hold thus:-
“We have carefully gone through the impugned order under challenge and perused the records. No doubt that the vehicle in question insured with the appellant and the policy was in force in between 05.01.2010 and 04.01.2011. The vehicle said to have been stolen on the morning of 26.06.2010 when he had parked the vehicle in front of his house. Of-course he said to have been made an attempt to inform the appellant and other ops orally, but said to have been informed on 28.06.2010 at about 10.30 a.m. orally. So also he lodged a complaint only on 10.07.2010 with the jurisdictional police. Accordingly crime No.100/2010 came to be registered and finally the police submitted “C” report at the first instance. Of-course, there is a delay of 14 days in lodging the complaint. The respondent has not produced a single document to show that he informed the appellant and other op about missing of his vehicle (Commission of theft of his vehicle) and the said vehicle said to have been used by the respondent by leaving hire to the Cinema people. It is well settled law that the owner of the vehicle immediately informed the insurer about the missing of the vehicle of theft of the vehicle within 48 hours. But the respondent who is a complainant and the registered owner of the vehicle informed the appellant and other ops orally.
In Para-7 of the order, the DF has clearly observed that the respondent/complainant eaking out his livelihood by sending his vehicle on hire to the Cinema people. So he returned to the house on 25.06.2010 after completing Cinema shooting, parked his vehicle by the side of his house which was missing. But the DF has made an observation that the complainant has stated in his sworn statement i.e., affidavit evidence he had informed about theft of the vehicle on 28.06.2010, but declined to grant relief. On the other hand the appellant/OP No.1 denied that he has not received any intimation from the complainant about the commission of theft of his vehicle. Since it is oath against oath and the same cannot be believed and accepted the contention of the respondent in the absence of any documentary evidence i.e., any written document that he had informed the appellant and other OP. It is not the case of the appellant that it had not furnished the terms and conditions of the policy along with policy. There is a specific Clause and condition with the insurance policy that in case of theft/missing, the owner shall inform or intimate the said fact within 48 hours. Since his vehicle being hired by the people who are working in Cinema Industry and he is not an uneducated person to believe that he has orally informed the appellant and other Ops about missing of his vehicle and there is a delay of 14 days in lodging the complaint to police also. The DF made an observation in Para-8 of the order that the complainant never stated that whom he had contacted? At what time he had contacted? Either the 1st op or 2nd op on 28.06.2010 and he has not filed any claim form to believe the very contention of the respondent that notice said to have been issued to OP on 01.10.2010, the ops would have treated that notice itself as an acknowledgment about theft, but forgotten to the terms and conditions of the policy thought he DF ought to have been dismissed the complaint passing the impugned order that the appellant/ops shall consider the notice dated 01.10.2010 issued by the complainant to them as the claim form as if there is a delay in intimating about the theft of the vehicle which is incorrect. If the complainant fails to inform or intimate the insurer and other op within 48 hours, then it amounts to failure of the terms and conditions of the policy and the complaint filed by the respondent ought to have been dismissed on the ground that he has not intimated about the theft within 48 hours.”
That means to say if the theft is not intimated and claimed within 48 hours the claim is barred. This in all force applies to the facts and circumstances of this case.
10. Further in this case the first opposite party is the Chairman, the second opposite party is the Manager and the third opposite party is C.V.S.R. Sharma. How can these persons be made as parties to this proceeding, it is not IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited represented by its chairman, represented by its manager as the parties to the proceedings. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Dismissed.
2. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send a copy of this order to the complainant free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 15th Day of September 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
