CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

                                                Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

 

CC No.29/10

Thursday, the 10^th day of February, 2011

 

Petitioner                                              : C.V. James,

                                                             Kakkanattu Chackalackal

                                                              Thellakom PO,

                                                             Kottayam.

                                                            (Adv.Tomy.K.James)

 

                                                        Vs.

Opposite party                                     : The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.

                                                              Chambers, Kanjikuzhy, Kottayam

                                                             Rep.by its Divisional Manager.

                                                             (Adv.Sajan A.Varghese)

                                                            2) The Regional Transport Officer,

                                                                Regional Transport Office,

                                                                Kottayam.

                                                           

 

 

 

            The case of the petitioner, filed on 10-02-10, is as follows:-

 

            Petitioner is the owner of a Mahindra Scorpio vehicle, bearing Registered No.KL5 R 864. The said vehicle was validity insured with the 1^st opposite party. The said vehicle was stolen on the intervening night on 5/3/05 and 6/3/06 from the premises of the petitioner’s brother’s house. Ettumanoor Police registered a complaint with regard to the theft of the vehicle. Petitioner informed the matter to 1^st opposite party on 6/3/05 and subsequently preferred a claim to the 1^st opposite party to indemnify the damages caused to the petitioner. According to the petitioner from the very first instance the 1^st opposite party tried to delay the matter on various untenable                grounds. On 27/4/06 the 1^st opposite party issued a cheque to the petitioner for Rs.484875/- as 75% value of the vehicle as claim amount. For getting the balance payment the 1^st opposite party directed the petitioner to get the registration certificate transferred infavour of the 1^st opposite party which they know is not possible. Petitioner directly approached the 2^nd opposite party several times to get the vehicle transferred in the name of 1^st opposite party but as the vehicle was not in existence and the tax, insurance and related documents were not current, all the approaches of the petitioner to transfer the vehicle were in vein. On 23/3/09 the 1^st opposite party issued a letter to the petitioner saying that they will not disburse the balance amount without transferring the vehicle in the name of the 1^st opposite party. According to the petitioner the said direction of the opposite party is on fully knowing that the transfer as aforesaid is not possible. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service, so he prays for a direction to the 1^st opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.324257.75 with 12% interest from the date of complaint till realisation. Petitioner claims Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 50,000/- as punitive damages and cost of the proceedings.

            The 1^st opposite party filed version contending that petition is not maintainable. Petitioner had insured a Mahindra Scorpio Vehicle with 1^st opposite party. Petitioner preferred a claim for the loss of the s aid vehicle by way of theft. Initially all the documents were not produced by the petitioner at the time of making claim. Petitioner was requested to transfer the ownership of the vehicle to 1^st opposite party for settling the claim. Petitioner was also requested to produce the final report of investigation. According to the opposite party the said documents are highly necessary and mandatory for settling the claim made by the complainant. The claim was processed based on documents produced and it was decided to settle on account basis due to the absence of the final report of the investigation and transfer of vehicle in the name of 1^st opposite party. It was recommended to settle the claim for Rs. 484875/- as the 75% value of the vehicle stolen. According to the 1^st opposite party the balance amount was not paid due to the non submission of the records.1^st opposite party prayed for dismissal of the petition with their costs.

            2^nd opposite party filed version contending that petition is not maintainable. According to the 2^nd opposite party he has no direct knowledge with regard to the allegations in the complaint. As per the intimation of the registered owner it is known that the vehicle was stolen on 7/3/05. Registration Authority cannot effect transfer of ownership merely on the strength of the request of the registered owner. 2^nd opposite party can effect transfer of vehicle only with strength of valid and current documents along with application with prescribed fees. According to the 2^nd opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they prayed for dismissal of the petition with their costs.

i)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

ii)                   Reliefs and costs

Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties Ext.A1 to Ext.A8(a) documents on the side of the petitioner.

            Admittedly 75% of the value of the vehicle stolen was settled by the opposite party on account basis. 1^st opposite party deny the balance 25% claim amount on the ground that there is no final investigation report submitted by the petitioner and there is no transfer of the vehicle in the name of 1^st opposite party. 2^nd opposite party in their version averred that registration authority cannot effect transfer of ownership merely on the strength of the request of registered owner or anybody else. They further contented that either the registered owner or the insurance company shall produce necessary documents along with proper application with prescribed fees then only they can transfer the vehicle, opposite party has not denied the theft of the vehicle as alleged by the petitioner. Petitioner produced 2 certificates dated 22/9/05 and 24/5/06 issued by the Circle Inspector of Police Ettumanoor said documents were marked as Ext.A8 and Ext.A8(a). From the Ext.A8 and A8(a) documents it can be seen that the Circle Inspector of Police certified that a case was registered with regard to the theft of KL 5 R 8641 Scorpio on the night on 5/3/05. Investigation of the case is being conducted by the C.I of Police. Stolen property could not be recovered and the investigation is being continued. In our view act of the 1^st opposite party, insurance company, in requesting the insured for documents which are not possible to be produce and in inordinate delay in settling the claim of the petitioner as full and final is a clear deficiency in service.

            As per Regulation 9(1) of IRDA (Protection of Policyholders Interests) Regulations 2002 an insured shall be noticed to the insurer of any loss under contract of insurance at the earliest. On receipt of such a communication a general insurer shall respond immediately and give clear indication to the insured on the procedures to be followed.

            As per Regulation 9(5) on receipt of the report of the surveyor insurer shall within a period of 30 days offer a settlement of claim or else reject the claim.

            As per Regulation 9(6) on acceptance of an offer as stated in sub regulation (5) the payment of amount shall be made within 7 days. In the case of delay in the payment the insurer shall liable to pay interest at a rate which is 2% above the bank rate prevalent at the beginning of the financial year. Here in our view request of the 1^st opposite party with regard to the final report, transfer of a stolen vehicle in the name of insurer etc.etc are only delaying tactics for not processing the claim of the petitioner. By getting a certificate from C.I of Police opposite party can very well settle the claim, so in our view act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. So point no.1 is found accordingly.

            In view of the findings in point No.1 petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled to relief sought for.

            In the result opposite party is ordered to give the petitioner balance amount of the vehicle amounting to Rs.162625 with 9% interest from 27/4/06 till realisation. Since interest is allowed no compensation is ordered.

            The opposite party is ordered to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 3000/- as litigation cost. Opposite party can claim the stolen vehicle bearing registration No.KL 5 R 8641 Scorpio Car, if it is recovered in future with regard to the investigation, in crime No.139/05 of Ettumanoor Police Station.

 Order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of copy of the order.

            Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the10th day of February, 2011.

 

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

           

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-

 

Ext.A1-Copy of motor claim form

Ext.A2-Copy of letter issued by C.V. James to the 1^st OP dtd 24/2/06

Ext.A3-Copy of letter issued by 1^st Op to 2^nd OP

Ext.A4-Copy of letter from the petitioner to the 2nd OP dtd 25/5/06

Ext.A5-Receipt for Rs.484875 dtd 27/4/06

Ext.A6-Copy of letter from the petitioner to the 1^st OP dtd 22/9/08

Ext.A7-Copy of letter dtd 23/3/09 issued by 1^st OP to the petitioner

Ext.A8-Certificate issued by CI of Police dtd 22/9/05

Ext.A8(a) certificate issued by CI of Police dtd 22/9/05

Nil

 

By Order,

 

 

Senior Superintendent.