O R D E R
Per Sri A.Prabhakar Gupta, Member:-
This complaint is filed U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, Seeking directions on opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.45,200/- towards vehicle cost and interest @ 24% p.a. from 04-09-11 to 04-03-13 i.e 18,800/- and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and compensation and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards costs and legal expenses.
2. In brief the averments of the complaint are here under:
The factual matrix of the case is that the present complainant is the owner of the Hero Honda Passion Pro two wheeler vehicle, bearing No. AP 07 AY 5677. At the time of purchase he obtained a policy from the opposite party against the payment of Rs.1,244/- as a premium. In turn the opposite party issued a insurance policy bearing No.3005/1192801/10290/000 dated 09-10-10, and the said insurance is having effective nature from 9-10-10 to 8-10-11. While that is so, on 09-04-11 the complainant parked his vehicle in front of his house and went inside of the house and after lapse of two hours he found that his vehicle was subjected to theft. Immediately he made enquiry and searched for the vehicle at his best, but all are in vain. Further, the complainant lodged a criminal complaint with the Lalapaet police station and in turn the said police registered the case under Cr.No.227/11 dated 02-06-11. As the vehicle was not traced by the police concerned issued a memo on 26-09-11 stating that the vehicle was not traced. As there is no other go the complainant made a representation to the opposite party by enclosing all the necessary documents and made a request to settle the claim since the said vehicle was insured and also the policy was in force. In turn the opposite party issued a letter on 04-09-11 stating that they cannot honour the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant lodged a criminal complaint with the police concerned after lapse of 54 days that is on 02-06-11 from the date of occurrence. Since the repudiation of the opposite party is not on proper line and as there is no other go the present complainant filed a complaint before this Hon’ble Forum for grant of reliefs as prayed for.
3. Opposite party filed its version which is in brief as follows.
In reply to the complainant the opposite party filed their version denying the facts that they committed deficiency of services on their part. Further, the opposite party mentioned that the present complainant violated the terms of the policy as he lodged a complaint with the police after lapse of 54 days. Further, they also mentioned that the complainant not taken necessary steps to safeguard the vehicle in terms of policy conditions as such there is no deficiency of services on their part in repudiation of the complainant’s claim and prayed this Forum to dismiss the complaint.
4. The complainant and the opposite party filed their affidavits in support of their contentions. To prove the case, the complainant filed 7 documents which were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-7 and on behalf of opposite party Exs.B-1 to B-4.
5. Now the points for consideration.
1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
2. Whether there is any negligence or deficiency of services on the part
of the opposite party?
3. To what relief?
6. POINT NO.1&2:- The learned counsel for the complainant filed written arguments and argued that the present complainant is illiterate and he searched for the vehicle at his best but all in vain. After due search only he made report to the police and so the delay was caused. He further argued that the complainant has taken all the necessary steps and precautions to safe guard his vehicle being as a owner and he never violated the terms of the policy. Further, he argued that there is no hard and past rule in the policy that notice has to be given immediately and in its absence the repudiation of the claim is not correct. Hence, prayed this Forum to grant reliefs as prayed for.
7. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the present complainant violated terms and conditions of the policy. Neither the complainant intimated the fact of theft/missing of the vehicle to opposite party company nor lodged a complaint with the police concerned immediately. Only he intimated the fact to this opposite party after lapse of 47 days and he lodged a complaint with police after lapse of 54 days. Further, he argued that the complainant himself admitted that he was not locked the said vehicle while he was going into the house. Both of these acts of the complainant are clear violation of policy terms and conditions. Hence, repudiation of claim was made on proper line and the said act is not at all deficiency of services and he requested this Forum to dismiss the present complaint. For his arguments he filed two authorities for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Forum which were reported under IV (2005)CPJ(602) and in National Consumer Disputes Reddrssal Commission case under FA No.426/2004, decided on 04-06-06.
8. With the above discussions and on the strength of the documents available on record it is an admitted fact that the present complainant is the owner of the vehicle which is having opposite party’s insurance policy. It is also an admitted fact that the said vehicle was subjected to theft and the policy was in force as on date of occurrence. Now the discussing point is whether the complainant violated the policy terms and conditions.
9. With the contents of Ex.B-2 that is FIR dated 02-06-11 registered under Cr.No.227/11 shows the date of registration as 09-04-11. So, admittedly there is delay in lodging a criminal complaint with the concerned police. In terms of the policy which were enumerated under Ex.B-1, it is mentioned that “notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately occurrence of the any accident or loss or damage and in the even of any claim and thereafter insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require” Further it is also mentioned that “in case of theft or other criminal act which made be subject of claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and reported with company in securing conviction of the offender’. As per this condition the present complainant has to intimate the fact of theft to the opposite party company as well as to the concerned police immediately. Where as the present complainant informed the matter to the opposite party company after lapse of 47 days and lodged a criminal complainant after lapse of 54 days. It seems to be violation of police terms.
10. As per the contents of Ex.B-3 letter dated 10-06-11 by the complainant it is mentioned that “by mistake the complainant was not locked his vehicle and went into the house’. After return only he found that his vehicle was subjected to theft. As per the policy terms and conditions the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage……… This fact enumerated under 4th condition of the policy. Admittedly the present complainant not locked his vehicle while he left the same in front of his house. This admission itself is clear violation of the policy terms.
As per the authorities filed by the opposite party reported in a case United India Insurance company Vs Naresh Kumar reported in IV (2005 CPJ) 602 their Lordship opined that if there is any negligence on the part of the complainant to safeguard the insured vehicle , repudiation of claim is not at all falls under deficiency of services.
In another case reported in FA 426/04 by National Consumers Disputes Reddressal Commission decided on 04-07-06 in a case Sri Dharma Siva Vs MGF (India) Ltd., wherein their Lordships held that if the complainant violated the intimation of fact of theft to the opposite party company immediately, and on the ground of that, if the opposite party company repudiated the claim, will not be amounts to deficiency of services, since the complainant violated the policy terms.
In a recent case by our Hon’ble National Commission, in a case Gyarsi Devi and others Vs United National Insurance Company reported in IV(2011) CPJ 30 (NC) where in their Lordship held the fact of theft has to be intimated to the opposite party company immediately. In the absence, it should be treated as violation of terms of the policy.
11. By all these discussions and with the opinions of Hon’ble National Commission this Forum comes to a safe conclusion that there is no deficiency of services on the part of opposite party in repudiation of the claim since the complainant violated policy terms.
12. In the result, the complainant is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 21st day of June, 2013.
Sd/-XXX Sd/-XXX Sd/-XXX
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.Nos. |
DATE |
DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS |
A1 |
09-10-10 |
Copy of Invoice cum delivery challan. |
A2 |
02-11-10 |
Copy of certificate of registration. |
A3 |
02-06-11 |
Copy of Police complaint from complainant to S.H.O. Lalapet. |
A4 |
02-06-11 |
Copy of First Information Report. |
A5 |
26-09-11 |
Copy of Form – 70 (Notice to the complainants) |
A6 |
04-09-11 |
Copy of letter from opposite party to complainant. |
A7 |
09-10-10 to 08-10-11 |
Copy of two wheeler certificate cum policy schedule. |
For opposite party: -
Ex.Nos. |
DATE |
DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS |
B1 |
09-10-10 to 08-10-11 |
Copy of two wheeler certificate cum policy schedule |
B2 |
02-06-11 |
Copy of Police complaint from complainant to S.H.O. Lalapet along with FIR copy. |
B3 |
10-06-11 |
Copy of letter from complainant to opposite party. |
B4 |
04-09-11 |
Copy of letter from opposite party to complainant. |
Sd/-XXX
PRESIDENT
