Date of Filing : 11.08.2011
Date of Order : 19.11.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 020
Dated 19th day of November 2011
PRESENT
Sri.H.V.Ramachandra Rao B.Sc., BL …. President
Sri. BALAKRISHNA V. MASALI, B.A., LL.B.(SPL) …. Member
COMPLAINT NO. 1496/2011
Sri.Ahmed Kabeer,
S/o.late.Karim Saheb,
R/a Gonikoppa Road, Right side,
Vijayanagar, Virajpet,
Mercara district 571 218.
And also residing at No.22,
2nd Cross, Vinayaka Layout,
Boopasandra,
Bangalore 94.
(By Advocate Sri.Manjunatha) ……. Complainant
V/s.
ICICI Lombard general Insurance
Company Ltd.,
Regd. Office:ICICI Bank Towers,
Bandra Kurla complex,
Mumbai 400 051
Also at
ICICI Bank Ltd., ICICI Tower,
Mezzanine Floor, East wing,
No.1, Commissionarate Road,
Bangalore 25.
And also at
Interface Building No.11,
401/402, 4th Floor, New Link Road,
Malad(W),
Mumbai 400 064. Opposite Parties
ORDER
(By the President Sri. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO)
The brief antecedents that yet to be filing of the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the OP to pay a sum of Rs.3,15,000/- are necessary:
1. The complainant had purchased KA-04-MD-1114 Mahindra Scorpio Vehicle from its previous owner P.S.Ganguli during II week of May 2010 and the RC was transferred in his name on 28.06.2010. The son of the complainant had brought the vehicle to Bangalore and it was stolen on 27.05.2010. The son of the complainant had informed the police and complaint was lodged on 21.07.2010. The vehicle was insured with the OP and it was valid between 15.10.2009 and 14.10.2010. The OP had acknowledged the transfer of the vehicle in the name of the complainant. The theft was informed to the OP on 21.07.2010. The complainant also submitted the necessary documents. The police also filed ‘C’ report in Crime No.349/2010. The OP repudiated the claim on 08.06.2011. Hence the complaint.
2. In this case the notice was served on the OP but they remained absent through out the proceedings. The complainant also did not turn up after filing of the complaint, hence perused the record.
3. The point that arise for our consideration are
A) Whether there is deficiency in service ?
B) What order ?
4. Our answers are:
A) Negative
B) As per the detailed order for the following
REASONS
5. Reading the complaint in conjunction with the documents on records it is established that the vehicle KA-04-MD-1114 was registered in the name of Sri.P.S.Ganguli. It was transferred in the name of the complainant by the RTO on 28.06.2010 as per the endorsement in the RC. The insurance policy was in the name of the previous owner for the period between 15.10.2009 and 14.10.2010 which was transferred in the name of the complainant on 07.07.2010.
6. Further it is established that the son of the complainant had lodged the complaint with the police on 21.07.2010 alleging the vehicle was stolen on 27.05.2010 and in the police register the case in crime No.349/2010 issued FIR conducted investigation and filed “C” report before the court subsequently.
7. In this regard the complainant made a claim before the OP. According to him OP repudiated the claim on 08.06.2011. The said repudiation reads thus”
“We wish to inform you that we have received the documents submitted by you, for processing of your claim. On the basis of scrutinizing the documents submitted and further surveying the facts of the claim, we regret to inform you, our inability to honour the claim because of the following reasons:
You have purchased the said vehicle from second hand car dealers on 8th April 2010. the registration certificate and insurance policy was not transferred at the time of loss as per Motor Vehicle Act. Hence the claim is not entitled as insurable interest stands nil.
As per the motor vehicle 157, which states that-The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance. This is violation of Motor Vehicle Act.”
There is no illegality or irregularity in the said repudiation.
8. In this case admittedly the vehicle has been committed theft on 27.05.2010, no complaint was lodged immediately to the police. The complaint was lodged on 21.07.2010 after lapse of two months. According to the complainant he has informed the theft of the vehicle to the OP on 21.07.2010 after two months of alleged theft. Under the policy and as per the judgement of the apex court and our State Commission if there is a delay of more than 48 hours in lodging the claim then the insured is not entitled to the benefits under the policy. Hence the rejection of the claim is justified.
9. Even otherwise as on the date of the theft the complainant was not the owner of the vehicle nor the insurer and complainant or laid claim. The policy holder had not laid any claim regarding the theft of the vehicle, as on the date of the theft no complaint was lodged. Merely the policy is transferred to the name of the complainant on 07.07.2010 he cannot claim for the things happened earlier to the policy being transferred in his name, hence the repudiation is justified. There is no deficiency in service. Hence we hold the above point accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Complaint is dismissed.
2. Return the extra sets to the concerned parties as under regulation 20(3) of the consumer protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send copy of this Order to both the parties free of cost immediately.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 19th day of November 2011
MEMBER PRESIDENT
