Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/146/2016

S.Jayaraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard General Insurance co LTD the Manager - Opp.Party(s)

N.Vanaraj

27 Nov 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  01.09.2016

                                                                Order pronounced on:  27.11.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL PRESIDENT

 

THIRU.D. BABU VARADHARAJAN B.Sc., B.L., :   MEMBER – I

 

TUESDAY  THE 27^th   DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

 

C.C.NO.146/2016

 

S.Jayaraj,

No – 1/23, Pachiamman Kovil Street,

Jamin Pallavaram,

Chennai – 43.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.The Manager,

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited,

No.401 & 402, 4^th Floor, Interface 11,

New Link Road, Malad(West),

Mumbai – 400 064.

 

2.The Manager,

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited,

Chotabhai Center, 2^nd and 3^rd Floor,

140, Uthamar Gandhi Road,

Chennai – 600 034.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 21.09.2016

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.N.Vanaraj, M.Gopi

 

Counsel for Opposite Parties                    : Mrs.Eleveera Ravindran, K.Vinod,

                                                                     S.Ponraj

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant  to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.48,000/- towards Insurance Claim amount and also to pay a sum of 25,000/- towards damages for the mental agony, stress, loss, hardship and deficiency in service  with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant  is the owner of the two wheeler vehicle make YAMAHA – FZS having registration No.TN-22-CM5457. The complainant purchased the same from the dealer BIKERZ at the cost of Rs.85,202/- and got the same registered in the office R.T.O. Meenambakkam on 02.12.2013. The complainant also insured his vehicle with the opposite parties insurance company on 02.12.2013 and subsequently renewed it on 20.12.2014 which is valid up to 19.12.2015.  On 23.01.2015 at about 7 pm he parked the above said motor cycle at TRISULAM Railway Station for dropping of his Uncle and at about 7.30 p.m when he came out of the Trisulam Railway Station, the complainant found his Two Wheeler Missing and was stolen. After searching the same around the railway station, he approached the Railway Police to lodge a complaint. But the Railway Police refused to receive the complaint. As the complainant was to travel out of Station same night, he had no other alternative but to postpone preferring the complaint. The complainant on return from his out station engagement immediately intimated the opposite parties company of the Loss/Theft of his Two Wheeler. The same was acknowledged by the opposite parties in No.MOTO4354834. Thereafter at the advice  of the opposite parties the complainant has also made a complaint with the Jurisdictional S-3 Meenambakkam police. The Jurisdictional Police, on receipt of the complaint from the complainant, registered the same in Crime No.77/2015. The complainant preferred a claim before the opposite parties in his Insurance Claim for Rs.48,000/- for the loss of his Two Wheeler YAMAHA-FZS having registration No.TN 22 CM 5457. The opposite parties has after receiving the claim has in their reply dated 08.07.2015 has rejected the claim on frivolous grounds. The complainant has sent in his reply on 24.02.2016  through his counsel along with the ‘UN-DETECTABLE’ certificate issued  by the Honble JM, Alandur in CMP No.610/2016 in Crime No.77/2014 and requested the 2^nd opposite party to process the claim. The complainant is eligible to receive as insurance claim for Rs.48,000/- as  ID value for the lost two Wheeler of the complainant from the opposite parties. The 2^nd opposite party has neither processed the claim nor sent any reply and once again on 19.07.2016 sent all the documents to the opposite parties requesting them to process the claim. However, the opposite parties are bent upon in not processing the legitimate insurance claim of the complainant. The opposite parties were totally irresponsible and high disregard towards the complainant   as a customer even though insurance premium  is paid in respect of two wheeler promptly. The opposite parties by refusing to entertain valid and legally enforceable insurance claim not only caused financial loss but also caused mental agony and mental harassment. The complainant being a consumer and prays for a direction to the opposite parties to pay the insurance claim amount of Rs.48,000/- payable in respect of the complainant’s lost Two Wheeler and also seeking compensation for the  deficiency in service, mental agony and harassment suffered.

 

 

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The opposite parties put the complainant to strict proof that he had purchased a two wheeler bearing No.TN 22 CM 5457 for a sum  of Rs.85,202/- and had fulfilled all the formalities and that the vehicle was insured with this opposite parties. The opposite parties had issued a policy bearing No.3005/97688516/00/B00 covering the period from 20.12.2014 to 19/12/2015. The opposite parties put the complainant to strict proof of the allegations  and that on 23.01.2015 at about 7 pm he parked his two wheeler at Trisulam Railway Station and when he returned at about 7.30 pm he found his two wheeler missing. It is admitted by the complainant that he belatedly intimated the opposite parties of the alleged theft, after an inordinate delay of 7 days. The opposite parties submit that the complainant has not come with clean hands before this forum and there are glaring discrepancies in his statements. In any event the complainant had filed a belated FIR after  an inordinate delay of more than 14 days and has thus violated the terms and conditions  of the policy and MV Act. The complainant ought to have intimated the police authorities and the opposite parties immediately on the occurrence of the incident. The same was not complied  with by the complainant, there was a delay of more than 7 days in intimating this opposite party. Hence, the complainant was informed vide letter dated 08.07.2015 that the claim was repudiated.  The opposite parties have discharged their duties and communicated diligently to the complainant. The opposite parties submit that ignorance is no excuse in law. It is only the complainant who has come out with this false and vexatious complaint and did not comply with the policy and the opposite parties had diligently discharged their duties and the lapse was only due to the inordinate delay on the part of the complainant, hence there was no mental agony as alleged.  There is no cause of action and hence no claim is payable much less the claim for Rs.48,000/- towards the loss of vehicle and further sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony, stress, loss hardship and deficiency in service and costs which shows the avaricious nature of the complainant. The complaint is to be dismissed.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO :1 

          The complainant  is the owner of the two Wheeler vehicle make YAMAHA – FZS having registration No. TN-22-CM 5457. He purchased it from the dealer BIKERZ on 27.11.2013 for an amount of Rs.85,202/-. Under Ex.A1, RC stands in the name of the complainant as per Ex.A2. Insurance policy stands in the name of the complainant and at the time of loss, Insurance is covered as on date as per Ex.A3.The Complainant  parked his vehicle at “Trisulam Railway Station” on 23.01.2015 at  7.00 p.m. When he returned to take his Two-wheeler at about 7.30 p.m. it was found missing and was stolen. The complaint was lodged on 06.02.2015 at Meenambakkam police station and the FIR is Ex.A4. Ex.A5 is the letter dated 08.07.2015 from the opposite parties  rejecting the claim of the complainant. Ex.A6 in the CMP order by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Alandur as the case is closed as ‘Undetectable.  Ex.A7 is the Legal notice and Ex.A8 is the notice given by the complainant to the opposite parties.

5. The opposite parties  have filed Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 i.e  the policy of insurance of the complainant, Terms and conditions of the policy and letters sent by the opposite parties  to the complainant. There are two points putforth by the opposite parties  that the FIR is not registered immediately and also the theft of the vehicle is not intimated by the  complaint immediately to the opposite parties.

6. The FIR for the stolen vehicle was lodged 14 days after the theft of the insured vehicle and there was a delay of 6 days  in intimating  the theft of the vehicle to the opposite parties. The complainant would contend that his complaint to Railway police at Tambaram was refused, and he had to travel outstation on the late night therefore there is no alternative, except to postpone preferring the complaint and then he approached the opposite parties. But the complainant had stated in Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 that he has intimated the opposite parties   within a reasonable time. No copy of the letter of immediate intimation is submitted by the complainant. The reason for delay in filing in FIR as stated by the complainant is not substantiated by any records. No valid reason is putforth by the complainant with supported documents for delay in informing the police and claim  before the opposite parties. The Complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy by not intimating the opposite parties and registering FIR immediately as required in the terms of policy and there is no valid reasons stated by the complainant for the same.  

7. The policy conditions  in Ex.B2 reads as “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. Every letter claim writ summons and-or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest or fatal injury in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. 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 per the above said  conditions , there is   violation of the policy by the complainant thereby committed breach of the conditions of the policy  and there is a violation of basic conditions of  Insurance policy and it was also intimated to the complaint vide letter in Ex.B4. The learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted the citation in 2013  (2) CPR 844 (NC) in THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., VS. SH.HARPREET SINGH where in it is held that delay in reporting  insurer about theft of vehicle would be a violation of condition of policy and the order of dismissal by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal  Forum-I, Chandigarh was confirmed and it is applicable to this case.  In these circumstances,  the opposite parties’s rejection of the claim  does not amount to deficiency in service  and the complainant is not entitled to any amount claimed in the complaint.

08. POINT NO:2

          In view of the discussions held, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 27^th  day of November 2018.

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 27.11.2013                   Two Wheeler purchase bill

 

Ex.A2 dated 02.12.2013                   R.C.Book of the Two Wheeler standing in the

                                                    name of the complainant

 

Ex.A3 dated 19.12.2014                   Insurance policy of the Two Wheeler standing in

                                                    the name of the complainant

 

Ex.A4 dated 06.02.2015                   Copy of FIR filed by the complainant

 

Ex.A5 dated 08.07.2015                   Letter by the opposite party rejecting the insurance

                                                    claim of the complainant

 

 

Ex.A6 dated 01.02.2016                   Order made in CMP-610/2016, Crime No-77/2015

                                                    in the Hon’ble court of JM Alandur

 

Ex.A7 dated 24.02.2015                   Notice through the counsel sent to the opposite

                                                      party with postal receipt and acknowledgement

 

Ex.A8 dated 19.07.2015                   Letter to the opposite parties seeking to process the

                                                    insurance claim of the complainant

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Copy of Policy of insurance

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                     Copy of Terms and Conditions

 

Ex.B3 dated 16.04.2015                   Letter sent by opposite parties to the complainant

 

Ex.B4 dated 08.07.2015                   Letter sent by opposite party to the complainant

 

 

                                               

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT