Date of filing:24.12.2013
Date of Disposal:20.5.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT
SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE 20th DAY OF MAY, 2014.
C.C.No.5 OF 2014.
Between :
Adaka Suresh, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, R/o H.No.7-280, Near Polemma Temple, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada.
….. Complainant.
And
The General Manager, ICICI Lombard Insurance Ltd., Upstairs, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Vijayawada – 10.
…..Opposite Party.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 6.5.2014 in the presence of Sri V.G.Siva Kumar, Counsel for complainant and Sri D.Ravi Kiran, Counsel for opposite party and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The averments of the complaint are in brief:
1. The complainant is the owner of Hero Honda Passion Plus 2009 model and the said vehicle was insured with opposite party for the period from 27.7.2012 to 26.7.2013. While so on 20.2.2013 the complainant parked his vehicle in front of his shop at 10.30am and locked the same. At about 11.30 am when he wanted to go outside he observed that his vehicle was missed. The complainant made search to locate his vehicle but in vain. Therefore the complainant lodged a complaint with Satyanarayanapuram P.S. and they suggested to wait for some time to locate the vehicle. After 20 days the complainant registesred a case about loss of his vehicle. The said police registered the case on 11.3.2013. But till today the vehicle was not traced out. Subsequently the complainant submitted claim form to the opposite party along with necessary documents. On receipt of the same the opposite party wrote a letter dated 26.7.2013 to the complainant stating that his claim was repudiated on the ground that there is delay in registered the FIR with regard to theft of the vehicle. The plea taken by the opposite party is unjust and invalid. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite party praying the Forum to direct the opposite party to settle the claim amount of Rs.41,100/- along with interest thereon towards loss of his vehicle to pay Rs.25,000/- towards damages for mental agony and to pay costs of Rs.2,000/-.
2. The version of the opposite party is in brief:
The opposite party denied all the allegations of the complaint and submitted that the opposite party has received claim along with documents and the policy from the complainant alleging loss of insured motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 16 BM 95 involving theft and wherein it was clearly mentioned that the vehicle was stolen on 20.2.2013 and lodge a report with the police on 11.3.2013 i.e., after 19 days of the alleged theft of vehicle and the same was registered as FIR No.209/2013 dated 11.3.2013 under Section 379 of IPC. Further the complainant was sent intimation to the insurer i.e., this opposite party after 21 days. Thereupon after scrutiny of documents and survey in the matter the opposite party came to conclusion that the acts of insured are in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and therefore claim was repudiated and same was communicated to the insured vide its letter dated 26.7.2013. the terms and conditions of the policy mandates or stipulates that the insured is under obligation to lodge a police report immediately after incident of theft of insured vehicle and also send written intimation to the insurer. The complainant admittedly lodge a report with the policy on 11.3.2013 after 19 days of alleged theft of vehicle and sent intimation to the insured after 21 days of loss and this is violation of policy conditions and as such the complainant is not entitled to maintain the complaint against this opposite party. The opposite party clearly mentioned the reasons in the repudiation letter and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. On behalf of the complainant he gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 and on behalf of the opposite party Sri P.Venkata Siva Kumar, Legal Manager gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.8.
4. Heard and perused.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party
towards the complainant in repudiating the claim of the complainant?
2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 AND 2:-
6. On perusing the material on hand, the complainant is the owner of Hero Honda Passion Plus vehicle vide Ex.A.3 Temporary Registration certificate issued by Andhra Pradesh Transport Department to the complainant evidences the same. The same vehicle was insured with the opposite party for the period from 27.7.2012 to 26.7.2013 under Ex.A.4 two wheeler certificate-cum-policy schedule. While so on 20.2.2013 the vehicle of the complainant missed at 11.30am when parked it in front of his shop at 10.30 am. The complainant made search to find his vehicle but in vain. The complainant says that when he went to the Satyanarayanapuram police station of Vijayawada to give a complaint about the theft of his vehicle the police authorities suggested him to wait for some time to locate the vehicle. After 20 days the complainant forced to register a case and the said police registered case on 11.3.2013 under Ex.A.1 and gave a receipt for that under Ex.A.2. But till date the vehicle was not traced out. The complainant submitted claim form to the opposite party along with necessary documents. On receipt of the same the opposite party sent a repudiation letter Ex.A.5 dated 26.7.2013 to the complainant stating that the vehicle was stolen on 20.2.2013 and the complaint for the same has been lodged on 11.3.2013. The FIR for the stolen vehicle is lodged after 19 days of the theft of vehicle and the same was intimated to the opposite party after 21 days of date of loss. This is violation of policy condition. In the circumstances the claim stands as “no claim”.
7. The opposite party says that the opposite party has received claim Ex.B.3 along with documents Ex.B.5 first information report dated 11.3.2013, issued by S.I. of Police Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Ex.B.6 request letter to opposite party by the complainant informing about the theft of his vehicle and the information about the same given by him to the police authorities. On receiving the said documents the opposite party sent Ex.B.2 claim intimation sheet to the complainant and informed the complainant under Ex.B.7 letter dated 15.5.2013 that the FIR for the stolen vehicle is lodged 19 days after theft of insured vehicle. The FIR should have been immediately lodged after theft (1) If the complainant has any proof GD entry to substantiate the complaint given to police on same day of loss, provide a copy of the same.(2) There is delay for 21 days for intimating the claim to the company and to provide the reason for the delay in intimation in writing to opposite party. In the absence of the above mentioned documents the opposite party would be unable to process complainant’s claim. As the complainant failed to give above documents, the opposite party sent the repudiation letter Ex.B.1 dated 26.7.2013 stating that the claim was repudiate on delay in FIR.
8. We the Forum examined Ex.B.4 two wheeler package policy wording in condition clause it was mentioned (1) Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall required. In case of theft or other criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender.
As the complainant failed to inform the theft of his vehicle immediately to the opposite party and police in writing as per terms of the policy, he violated the terms and conditions of the opposite party.
The decisions of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi relied on by the opposite party i.e.,
1. 2014(1) CPR 427 (NC) Ramesh Chandra S/o Shri Munshi Ram Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., - wherein it was held that “Where by failing to promptly inform the theft of the truck to the police as well as the insurance company, the petitioner failed to take proper care to protect the interest of the respondent insurance company, as such, the respondent insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim’.
2. 2014(1) CPR 473 (NC) Smt Praveen Dalal Through Dr.Samunder Singh Lather - wherein it was held that “Immediate intimation to the police and filing of FIR as also the intimation to the insurance company are of paramount importance in the theft cases and any delay in this respect will have serious adverse effect on the interest of the insurance company”.
3. Revision Petition No.4762 of 2012 between Surender Vs. National Ins.Co.,Ltd.
4. Revision Petition No.3936 of 2012 between Budha Ganesh Vs. New India Insurance Company Ltd.
The above decisions are squarely applicable to the present case on hand.
Therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the opposite party as there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
POINT NO.3:-
9. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 20th day of May, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:-
P.W.1 A.Suresh D.W.1 P.Venkata Siva Kumar,
Complainant Legal Manager of the
(by affidavit) opposite party (by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A.1 11.03.2013 First Information Report.
Ex.A.2 11.03.2013 Receipt issued by SHO, O/o Vijayawada City Police Commissionerate.
Ex.A.3 11.07.2009 Copy of Temporary Certificate of Registration.
Ex.A.4 . . Photocopy of Two wheeler certificate-cum-policy schedule.
Ex.A.5 26.07.2013 Letter from the opposite party to the complainant.
For the opposite parties:-
Ex.B.1 26.07.2013 Photocopy of letter from the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.B.2 . . Copy of Claim Intimation Sheet.
Ex.B. 3 20.02.2013 Copy of Motor Theft Claim form.
Ex.B.4 27.07.2012 Copy of Two Wheeler Certificate-sum-Policy Schedule.
Ex.B.5 11.03.2013 Copy of First Information Report.
Ex.B.6 . . Copy of letter from the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.B.7 15.05.2013 Copy of letter from the opposite party to the complainant.
PRESIDENT
