IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.Ashok Kumar J.Dhole<br /> B.A(Hons), LL.B - President<br /> <br /> 2. Smt.M.Mahadevi<br /> M.Sc., M.Ed., -Member<br /> <br /> 3. G.V.Balasubramanya<br /> B.E., LL.M - Member<br /> <br /> CD 289/05 DATED 08-08-2006<br /> <br /> Complainants 1. S.R.Sardar Pasha,<br /> S/o Late Abdul Subhan, No.123 A.P.M.C. Market Yard, E Block, New Sayyaji Rao Road, Mysore.<br /> <br /> 2. A.Kevalchand Jain, No.415, Ashoka Road, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By T.Purna Kumar, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> <br /> Opposite Party The Divisional Manager,<br /> United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Sunder Arcade, B.N.Road, <br /> Opp. to Suburb Bus Stand, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By M.S.Jayaprakash, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in Service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 01-10-2005<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 20-10-2005<br /> Date of order : 08-08-2006<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 9 MONTHS 18 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> Sri. G.V.Balasubramanya,<br /> Member,<br /> <br /> 1. The 1st Complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA-09-9664 having purchased it with financial assistance from the 2nd Complainant. The vehicle had a Comprehensive Insurance Policy issued by the Opposite Party for Rs.6,50,000/-.<br /> 2. The vehicle was stolen on 17-05-2003 and a police Complaint was lodged at Channapattana Rural Police Station. The fact of theft was, also, intimated to the Opposite Party. Complainants submitted the claim form on 22-03-2004. Even before this, the 2nd Complainant in his capacity as financier of the vehicle had addressed a letter to the Opposite Party on 16-1-2004. Despite this letter and the claim form there was no reply from the Opposite Party. Hence, the 1st Complainant addressed another letter on 30-03-2005 asking the Opposite Party to settle the claim in favour of the 2nd Complainant as he was the financier. <br /> 3. The Complainants state that though the theft of the vehicle took place over 2 years back, the Opposite Party has not shown any inclination to settle the claim, which amounts to deficiency in service. The Complainants have prayed that the Opposite Party be directed to settle the insurance claim of Rs.6,50,000/- and also pay damages of Rs.50,000/-, both interest at 12% from the date of theft. They have, also, sought notice charges of Rs.50,000/-.<br /> 4. The Opposite Party in his version has admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with his company and has also admitted receipt of claim form on 22-3-2004. He says that the Complainants did not submit the ‘C’ certificate. He also, says that the vehicle was insured for Rs.4,50,000/- and it’s present value is between Rs.3,70,000/- and Rs.3,85,000/- as assessed by the surveyor. More importantly, the Opposite Party says that the Complainants have to establish the fact of theft before his liability to settle claim arises.<br /> 5. From the above contentions, the following points arise for our consideration:-<br /> a. Whether the Complainants prove that the Opposite Party has rendered deficient service by not settling the Insurance claim?<br /> b. What Order or relief?<br /> 6. Our findings on the above points are as under:-<br /> a. Point no.a: In the affirmative.<br /> b. Point no.b: As per final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. POINT NO. 6(a) :- The theft of the vehicle can be gathered from the F.I.R. dated 17/18-05-2003. It is stated that some unknown persons stopped the insured vehicle and told the occupants that the vehicle was under hire purchase and they were repossessing it. Having said this one of the persons got into the vehicle drove it for about 2 to 3 Kilometers, made the driver get down and robbed him of Rs.10,000/-. The vehicle was then taken away by them. The driver of the vehicle Mohammed Sameer went in search of the vehicle, but could not locate it. After the F.I.R., the police carried out investigation and the Office of the Police Superintendent, Bangalore District permitted the Channapattana Rural Police to file a C-report to the jurisdictional Court. <br /> 8. The fact that the vehicle was covered under insurance is not in dispute. The insurance was from 20-02-2003 to 19-02-2004 and the insured declared value was Rs.4,50,000/-. The lodging of the claim is also not in dispute. The allegations and counter allegations made by the parties were such that this Forum came to the conclusion that recording of oral evidence was necessary. Hence, the parties were directed to adduce oral evidence. The first Complainant has deposed as C.W.1. From the Opposite Party side Sri.K.M.Iyappa, Assistant Divisional Manager has deposed as R.W.1 and Sri.M.P.Jayaprakash, Divisional Manager has deposed as R.W.2. The Opposite Party has also produced private investigation report conducted by Pryman Detective Agency. The detective agency has concluded that even though the clarification given by the insured is not convincing there is nothing to prove the involvement of the insured in the theft. R.W.1 says that the main reason for not settling the claim is non-receipt of C-Report. To obtain the C-report, the Complainant during the pendency of the complaint moved an application in the Court of J.M.F.C. Channapattana and produced the certified copy of the Order sheet of the Court. Further proceeding is posted to 21-10-2006. Hence, the settlement now hinges the Complainants furnishing the C-Report.<br /> 9. The 1st Complainant is the owner of the vehicle and the second Complainant is the Financier. The hypothecation has been noted in the document issued by the Regional Transport Officer, (RTO) Mysore. However, the Opposite Party does not know about the hypothecation and the same is not found in the policy. In view of these facts, the opposite party says that claim can be settled only upon furnishing the C-Report from the jurisdictional Court. They further say that claim can be settled in favour of the 1st Complainant only as he is the policy holder. <br /> 10. First, we must deal with the delay in settling the claim. It is seen that the opposite party has not even repudiated the claim officially. In Hajmar Sing Cotton and General Mills –Vs- The B.M.United Insurance Co., Ltd., (1993) (2 CPJ 160 NC). It is observed that the reasonable time frame within which the National Insurance Company’s must either settled the claim or repudiate the claim is three months. In that case, the Insurance Company was directed to pay interest on the claim amount. There are a number of other decisions on the same issue. It is observed that the delay in this case is over 2 years. Therefore, we conclude that the Opposite Party has rendered deficiency in service by not settling the claim or atleast repudiating the claim. Hence, we answer the point in the affirmative. <br /> 11. The terms of the insurance policy does not say that claim would be settled only on production of the “C” report. Settlement of claim and acceptance of “C” report by the Court are two separate issues. The Opposite Party has to settle the claim or repudiate the claim as early as possible or else the whole concept of insurance would have no meaning. Insurance company has at its disposal such tools as subrogation and indemnity if and when the vehicle is recovered or if the insured deceives it. However, submission of “C” report can not be precondition for settlement of claim. With these observations, we proceed to pass the following order. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> A. Complaint is allowed.<br /> B. The Opposite Party is directed to pay the 1st Complainant Rs.4,50,000/- together with interest at 7% p.a. from 23-07-04 till the date of payment. In any case, the claim as stated above shall be settled within two months from today. If the Opposite Party fails to settle the claim within two months, then the 1st Complainant shall be entitled to further interest at 10% p.a. on the above sum (i.e. Rs.4,50,000/- + 7% interest from 23.07.04), thereafter until the date of payment.<br /> C. The 1st complainant shall complete all the formalities with the Opposite Party for release of the claim amount.<br /> D. The Opposite Party shall pay the 1st Complainant cost of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> E. If the 1st Complainant gives a valid discharge, then the Opposite Party can make payments referred to at B, and C supra to the 2nd Complainant.<br /> F. Give a copy of this Order to both parties according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open court on this the day 8th August 2006)<br /> <br /> <br /> (Ashok Kumar J.Dhole)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (M.Mahadevi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (G.V.Balasubramanya)<br /> Member<br /> <br />