Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/30/3015

V.Rajesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

V.Balasubramanian

02 Mar 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  06.02.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  02.03.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

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

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

FRIDAY  THE 02^nd DAY OF MARCH 2018

 

C.C.NO.30/2015

 

V.Rajesh,

No.4/81, Ramarao Garden,

Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.

 

 

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

No.414, Veer Savarkar Marg,

Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple,

Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025.

 

2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Chotta Bai Centre II Floor,

140, Nungambakkam High Road,

Chennai – 600 034.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 12.02.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.V.Balasubramanian Associates

 

Counsel for Opposite Parties                   : Mr.Michael Marie Antony      

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- including value of the vehicle 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 Honda Motor Cycle bearing Registration No:TN 06 H 2784 and purchased  on 24.08.2012. The vehicle was insured with the opposite parties on 20.08.2012 for a period of one year. The 2^nd opposite party issued the policy.

2. On 16.06.2013 the complainant parked his vehicle in front of his house at 10.00 p.m after locked the same. Next day morning he found that the vehicle was missing and immediately on 18.06.2016 he lodged the complaint at E2,Royapettah Police Station and FIR was registered in FIR No.461/13. The police reported the vehicle was undetectable and on their report the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet  passed an order on 10.10.2013 closing the FIR as undetectable.

3. Thereafter, the complainant made a claim to the opposite parties as the policy issued by them covers theft also. However, the opposite parties vide communication dated 25.08.2013 repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant had stated in his statement that he kept the keys in the ignition. There is no truth in the repudiation made by the opposite parties. They have no legal right to reject the claim. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- including value of the vehicle.      

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

It is an admitted that the complainant’s Honda Activa motorcycle registered as TN 06 H 2784 was insured with the opposite parties under  Two Wheeler package policy vide No.3005/2010689765/0000004618 for the period from 20.08.2012 to 19.08.2013 and for a value  of Rs.46,139/- in the name of Mr.V.Rajesh.

5. The complainant intimated the theft of his Honda Activa motorcycle to the opposite parties. On receipt of intimation the 2^nd opposite party appointed an independent Insurance Investigator to investigate  the claim. The complainant herein had given a statement to the investigator, signed and addressed to the Manager of the 1^st opposite party stating that he had parked his motorcycle in front  of his house,  leaving the key  in the vehicle without locking it. He had further reaffirmed the same in the claim form also.

6. This gross negligent act of the complainant, leaving the  vehicle  unattended with the key in the ignition  led to the incidence of the insured’s Activa being stolen.  Sufficient care  was not taken  by the complainant, which a prudent man ought to have taken. The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the opposite parties by letter dated 25.08.2013 due to the breach of terms  and conditions of the policy. Hence the opposite party in repudiating the claim and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.   

 

         

7. 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?

08. POINT NO :1        

It is an admitted fact that the complainant is the owner of the Honda Motor Cycle bearing Registration No:TN 06 H 2784  and  Ex.A1 is the  RC Book of the said vehicle and for the said vehicle the complainant insured  with the opposite parties for the period 20.08.2012 to 19.08.2013  and the policy is marked as Ex.A2 & Ex.B1 and the complainant parked the vehicle on 16.06.2013  at 10.P.M in front of his house and next day morning he did not found the vehicle and hence he made a complaint to the E2, Royapettah, police and they registered a case in FIR.No.461/13 under section 379 IPC and the police after investigation filed report before XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet   and based on that the Magistrate  passed  Ex.A5 order closing the FIR as undetectable and thereafter the complainant made claim to the Opposite parties have repudiated the claim in Ex.A4 that the complainant left the key in the ignition and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the policy.

          9. The complainant alleged deficiency against the opposite parties is that the claim was repudiated by the them as he had left the keys in the ignition is not correct and this complainant has no knowledge in writing or reading and he used to only sign and taking advantage of this ignorance, the opposite parties had on their own included in the statement and therefore the repudiation made by the opposite parties case is wrong.

          10. The complainant specifically pleaded in his proof affidavit that he is an uneducated and except for signing, he has no knowledge in writing or reading and taking advantage of his ignorance the opposite parties included in the statement. The side letter is marked as Ex.B3 addressed to the 2^nd opposite party which was written in English. Nowhere in the said letter,  has it been written that the same was obtained by the investigator. There is no contra evidence on behalf of the opposite parties that the complainant is capable writing and reading especially to write in English. The opposite parties simply would contend that since the letter was given by the complainant he left the key  in the vehicle has to be accepted. However, it is specific evidence of the complainant that taking advantage of his ignorance and he has no knowledge in writing and reading the letter was prepared by the opposite parties. This fact was not specifically denied by the opposite parties. Therefore we hold that the complainant is not the author of the Ex.B3 letter and the statement was prepared only by the opposite parties present and he was made to sign only in the letter and therefore the complainant left the key in the ignition of the vehicle has not been proved by the opposite parties.

11. In view of such conclusion that the opposite parties repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant left the key in the vehicle itself and thereby violated terms and conditions of the policy is not accepted and hence it is further held that the opposite parties 1 & 2 have committed deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the complainant.         

12. POINT NO:2

          The IDV value of the vehicle is Rs.46,139/- in Ex.B1 policy. Since the complainant lost the vehicle by way of theft he is entitled to get the IDV value of amount Rs.46,139/- from the opposite parties and accordingly the opposite parties can be directed. Further, in view of that  the opposite parties  have committed deficiency in service the complaint suffered with mental agony is accepted and hence, it would be appropriate to direct the opposite parties  to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.        

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The  Opposite Parties 1 & 2  jointly or severally  are ordered to refund  a sum of Rs.46,139/-  (Rupees forty six thousand  one hundred and thirty nine only) towards the  IDV value of  the vehicle  to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty  thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 2^nd day of March 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 24.08.2012                   R.C Book for vehicle TN 06 H 2784

Ex.A2 dated 20.06.2012                   Policy of Insurance issued by the opposite party

Ex.A3 dated 16.06.2013                   Copy of FIR No.461/2013

Ex.A4 dated 25.08.2013                   Letter of repudiation from the opposite party

Ex.A5 dated 10.10.2013                   Report from XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate,

                                                    Saidapet

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Insurance Policy with terms and conditions

 

Ex.B2 dated 08.06.2013                   Investigation Report

 

Ex.B3 dated NIL                     Statement of the complainant/Insured V.Rajesh

 

Ex.B4 dated         NIL                       Motor Claim Form signed by complainant

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT