Date of filing:11.11.2013
Date of Disposal:17.4.2014
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
SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014.
C.C.No.172 OF 2013.
Between :
Guddipogu Sashi Babu, S/o Joseph, Christian, 35 years, Employee, Residing at D.No.40-5/8-18, Church Street, Israilpeta, Vijayawada.
….. Complainant.
And
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Rep., by its Branch Manager, M.G.Road, Vijayawada.
2. The Authorized Signatory, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., #ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayaka Temple,Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025.
…..Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 2.4.2014 in the presence of Sri V.V.P.Dharma Rayudu, Counsel for complainant and Sri T.Veerabhadra Rao, Counsel for opposite parties and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S.Sreeram)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to pay the claim amount for the theft vehicle along with interest from the date of this complaint till the date of deposit, to grant compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and for costs.
1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant is the registered owner of Hero Passion Pro motor cycle bearing No. AP 16 BZ 5460 and he purchased the same on 6.1.2012. On the same day, he insured the same with the 1st opposite party on payment of Rs.1,193/- towards premium. The 1st opposite party issued policy-bond in favour of the complainant and the insurance is valid from 6.1.2012 to 5.1.2013. While so, on 6.10.2012 at 3.30 p.m the complainant came to his house for having lunch and parked his vehicle on the road before his house and after completion of lunch, he came out from his house and found missing of vehicle. Immediately he searched for the vehicle, but his efforts became futile and on 9.10.2012 the complainant gave report to police. But the police did not register the case in spite of several visits by complainant and finally registered the FIR on 9.11.2012 as Cr.No.751/12 and ultimately referred the case as ‘undetectable’. On 9.10.2012 the complainant addressed a letter to the opposite parties intimating the above said fact and the opposite parties appointed one Zuber as surveyor and requested to submit documents for settlement of claim. The complainant submitted all the documents to the Surveyor. But on 14.2.2013 the complainant received a letter from the opposite parties repudiating the claim of complainant on the ground of delay in registration of FIR. The complainant contacted the opposite parties and requested to settle the claim, but of no use. Hence, the present complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party filed version and the same was adopted by the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party apart from denying the allegations contended that the vehicle was stolen on 6.10.2012 and the complainant lodged report on 9.11.2012 and as such there is a delay of 34 days in lodging FIR, which is violation of terms and conditions of policy. Further the 1st opposite party reproduced the contents of correspondence that took place between the 1st opposite party and complainant. It is also contended that the complainant failed to comply with Condition No.1 of the policy in respect of the loss of vehicle and intimated to the insurer after three days of theft. It is further contended that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. The complainant filed his affidavit reiterating the material averments of his complaint and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.15. The legal Manager of the 1st opposite party filed his affidavit. The copy of policy filed by 1st opposite party is now marked as Ex.B.1.
4. Heard both sides and perused the record.
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
parties 1 and 2 in repudiating the claim of the complainant?
2. If so is the complainant entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
POINTS 1:-
6. On perusing the material on hand (complaint, affidavits and documents), there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of subject motor cycle by the complainant and insuring the same with the opposite parties. Ex.A.1 photo copy of certificate of registration and Ex.A2=Ex.B1 copy of policy establishes the same. The main grievance of the complainant is that the said motor cycle was committed theft by unknown offenders on 6.10.2012 at 3.30 p.m when the same was parked in front of his house and that after having searched for the same, he gave complaint to Machavaram police on 9.10.2012 and also informed to the 1st opposite party on the even date. But the police registered the case on 9.11.2012 only. It is the further case of complainant that he submitted all the required documents to the surveyor being appointed by the opposite parties for settlement of claim, but the opposite parties repudiated the claim on untenable grounds under Ex.A10 letter. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant intimated to them about the theft of vehicle on 9.10.2012 i.e after three days of occurrence, which is violation of Condition No.1 of policy and further there is a delay of 34 days in lodging the FIR and as such they are not liable to indemnify the loss.
7. A careful perusal of Conditions mentioned in Ex.B1 copy of policy, at page No.2, the condition No.1 reads as under
“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 require……….. 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 company……”.
As per the above condition, the complainant has to give report to the police immediately after the occurrence of theft and also intimate to the insurer. As per the case of complainant, the theft had occurred on 6.10.2012 at 3.30 p.m and he noticed the same immediately. But as seen from FIR marked under Ex.A.5, the crime was registered on 9.11.2012 and in Col.No.8 of FIR, the reasons for delay was mentioned as “searching for bike”. Even the perusal of report appended to FIR, the complainant himself mentioned that his motor cycle was found missing on 6.10.2012 and that he searched for the same all these days in the parking places of Vijayawada and finally giving report on 9.11.2012. When the complainant himself stated in the report that he searched for his vehicle till 9.11.2012 from 6.10.2012 and giving report on 9.11.2012, the contention of complainant that he approached the police immediately after occurrence of theft and the police did not register the case, cannot be accepted. In general, when a report is given to the police, a case would be registered or at least they would mention in the General Diary of the police station. In this case, the complainant has not taken any steps to produce the copy of General Diary of Machavaram Police Station to substantiate his contention. Further the opposite parties also vide Ex.A8 letter dt.27.12.2012 requested the complainant to submit the GD entry certificate/complaint copy for the confirmation that the complainant had intimated to police on the date of loss. But it seems that the complainant has not obliged the said request.
8. Further even according to the complainant, he gave report to police on 9.10.2012 and he also intimated to the 1st opposite party on 9.10.2012. Admittedly the theft occurred on 6.10.2012. For a moment assuming without admitting that the complainant informed the same to the police on 9.10.2012 about occurrence of theft, even then there is a delay of three days in giving report to police as well as to the 1st opposite party. In this case there is an inordinate delay of 34 days in lodging FIR and the said delay is not properly explained by the complainant. The complainant being a prudent man ought to have given report immediately after incident. Hence, the complainant has violated the condition No.1 of the policy in giving report to police and informing to insurer, which is mandatory in nature. The National Commission in Om Prakash Vs. National Insurance Co., Ltd., in 2012(3) CPJ 59 also upheld the decision of State Commission wherein the State Commission held that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy are required to be strictly construed and no exception can be made on the ground of equity, that even delay of few days in not intimating insurance company about incident of theft is fatal and the insured loses his right to be indemnified when he himself is not vigilant about his rights and obligations in regard to compliance of terms and conditions of policy.
9. Further the opposite parties also relied on several decisions in support of their case. We feel it sufficient to cite a few of them as noted below.
- 2014(1) CPR 370 of Hon’ble National Commission between : Budha Ganesh Vs. New India Assurance Co., Ltd. where under it is held that ‘Time is of essence in matters where theft of the vehicle has taken place”
- 2014(1) CPR 473 of Hon’ble National Commission between : Smt.Praveen Dalal Vs. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd. where under it is held that ‘immediate intimation to 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 insurance company”
- 2013(2) CPR 844 of Hon’ble National Commission between : The New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Sh.Harpreet Singh where under it is held that ‘delay in reporting to insurer about theft of vehicle would be a violation of the condition of policy”
- 2012(2) CPR 12 NC of Hon’ble National Commission between : Rajesh Kumar Vs. New India Assurance Co., Ltd., where under it is held that “lodging of FIR in case of theft should immediate concern for any owner of vehicle and under the terms of the policy, he is required to inform the insurance company and file the claim at the earliest”.
The above decisions relied on by the opposite parties are squarely applicable to the case on hand.
10. In view of aforesaid discussion, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in repudiating the claim of the complainant. Hence this point is answered in favour of the opposite parties and against the complainant.
POINT No.2:-
11. In the result, this complaint is dismissed but without costs.
Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 17th day of April, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:-
P.W.1 G.Seshi Babu D.W.1 P.V.Siva Kumar
Complainant Manager, Legal
(by affidavit) of the 1st opposite party
(by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A.1 . . Photocopy of Certificate of Registration.
Ex.A.2 06.01.2012 Photocopy of Two Wheeler Certificate cum Policy Schedule.
Ex.A.3 . . Letter from the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.A.4 23.11.2012 Photocopy of letter from the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A.5 09.11.2012 Photocopy of First Information Report.
Ex.A.6 01.06.2013 Photocopy of Case diary Part I.
Ex.A.7 06.06.2013 Photocopy of Notice to the complainants Duplicate issued by
Addl. Inspector of Police Machavaram P.S. Vijayawada City.
Ex.A.8 27.12.2012 Photocopy of letter from the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A.9 02.01.2013 Photocopy of letter from the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.A.10 14.02.2013 Photocopy of letter from the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A.11 15.11.2012 Photocopy of receipt for payment of cash.
Ex.A.12 . . Photocopy of letter from the complainant to the S.I. Crime.
Ex.A.13 21.11.2012 Photocopy of Indemnity cum declaration undertaking.
Ex.A.14 27.12.2012 Photocopy of letter from the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A.15 25.11.2012 Letter from Zubair & Co., Secunderabad to the complainant.
On behalf of the opposite parties:-
Ex.B.1 06.01.2012 Photocopy of Two Wheeler Certificate cum Policy Schedule.
PRESIDENT
