Date of Filing:13.05.2009<br /> Date of Order:30.09.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1112 OF 2009<br /> <br /> Suresh Sagar<br /> S/o. Late K. Narayanappa<br /> Proprietor, OMPLAST INC,<br /> No. 4/33, 2nd Main Road<br /> Chennigappa Industrial Estate<br /> Sunkadakatte, Magadi Road<br /> Bangalore 560091 Complainant<br /> V/S<br /> 1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.<br /> Having its corporate office at<br /> Zenith House, Keshavrao Khade Marg<br /> Race Course, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai 400034<br /> Rep. by its Managing Director<br /> <br /> 2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.<br /> Having its registered head office at<br /> ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex<br /> Mumbai 400051<br /> Rep. by its Managing Director<br /> <br /> 3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.<br /> No. 89, 2nd Floor, SVR Complex<br /> Hosur Main Road, Madivala, Bangalore<br /> Rep. by its Branch Manager Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> The facts of the case are that the complainant has purchased TVS moped for Rs. 24,500/- on 14.03.2007. He has taken insurance policy for the vehicle. Policy coverage is from 31.03.2008 to 30.03.2009. Declared value of the vehicle for the purpose of insurance is Rs. 17,720/-. On 28.06.2008 the employee of the complainant parked the vehicle locked in front of the office of complainant at about 6.30 p.m., the vehicle was found stolen at about 7.30. The complainant had lodged the complaint with the police. The complainant soon after coming to know the theft of vehicle called the opposite parties and intimated the fact of theft. The vehicle could not be traced out. Complainant lodged claim with the opposite party. Opposite party No. 1 has sent letter on 27.11.2008 requesting the complainant to furnish all the documents. Complainant handed over all the documents. Complainant requested opposite party to settle the claim. But to the shock of the complainant the claim was rejected. Complainant got issued legal notice. The opposite parties are liable to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony. Hence, the complaint.<br /> 2. After admitting the complaint notice was issued to opposite parties through RPAD. Notice was served on the opposite parties. Sri Manoj Kumar M.R. filed vakalath for opposite party on 29.06.2009 and took time for filing defence version. The case was adjourned to 17.07.2009. On that date opposite party was not present. The case adjourned for filing defence version finally by 03.08.2009. When the case was called on 03.08.2009 opposite party was not present and there was no representation for the opposite party. It was taken as defence version not filed and case adjourned to 17.08.2009 for complainant’s evidence. On 17.08.2009 complainant filed his affidavit evidence and case was adjourned to 14.09.2009 for opposite parties’ evidence. On 14.09.2009 also opposite party No. 1 was not present and evidence of opposite parties not produced. Arguments are heard and case is posted for orders. The opposite party filed defence version and affidavit after seeking permission on 26.09.2009. <br /> 3. I have gone through the complaint, defence version, affidavit and documents of both parties.<br /> 4. The point for consideration is:<br /> 1. Whether the repudiation of the claim is justified on the part of opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the opposite parties could be directed to pay the vehicle IDV amount?<br /> 3. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?<br /> 5. The complainant has produced purchase bill of vehicle. He has produced copy of RC book. Copy of insurance policy is also produced. On perusal of this policy the policy was issued on 31.03.2008. The period of insurance was from 31.03.2008 to 30.03.2009. The vehicle IDV is Rs. 17,720/-. The complainant has produced copy of FIR. On the basis of complaint filed by the complainant the Kamakshipalya Police have registered case under crime No. 300/08 for the offence punishable under section 379 CPC. The police could not trace out the vehicle. Therefore, it is placed ‘C’ report before the 5 ACMM, Bangalore. The complainant has produced notice issued by police to him. The complainant has also produced letters given by the opposite parties dated 27.11.2008 wherein the opposite parties have asked for documents to process the claim. The complainant has also produced his reply letter dated December 23, 2008 wherein he has stated that required documents have been handed over to the office executive. The complainant has produced repudiation letter of opposite party dated 30.12.2008. In this letter the claim had been repudiated by stating ‘delay in intimation to the insurer’. Except this reason no other reasons or any violation of conditions have been mentioned by the opposite party. Even for this reason no particulars or how much delay has been caused in intimating the fact of theft is mentioned. The ground of repudiation mentioned in the letter is very bald one. The opposite party could not have rejected the claim in this bald manner. The copy of legal notice has been produced by the complainant. Even after the notice also the claim has not paid. Therefore, the complainant is forced to file this complaint. The opposite parties have no reasons or whatsoever to reject the claim put up by the complainant. The complainant has got all the necessary documents. Instead of this his lawful claim has been repudiated by the opposite parties. This kind of response on the part of insurance company is not proper. It will not help the insurance company in any way. The repudiation of the claim in this case cannot be sustained in law. The opposite parties have committed deficiency in rendering service to the customers. The insured vehicle is of the year 2007 and theft has been taken place in the year 2008. Therefore, 10% is liable to be deducted in the IDV on account of depreciation. The vehicle IDV is Rs. 17,720/-. After deducting 10% towards depreciation net value of the vehicle comes to Rs. 15,948/-. The opposite parties are liable to pay this amount. Since, there is delay in settling the claim the complainant is definitely entitled for interest from 30.12.2008 the date of repudiation till payment. Granting 9% interest p.a. would be just, fair and reasonable in this case. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 15,948/- to the complainant along with 9% interest p.a. on that amount from 30.12.2008 till payment / realization within four weeks from the date of this order.<br /> 7. The complainant is also entitled for Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the present proceedings from the opposite parties.<br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER