Date of Filing : 31.10.2019
Date of Disposal: 10.05.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU. J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A, B.L. ..… MEMBER-I
THIRU P.MURUGAN, B.Com., ….. MEMBER-II
CC. No.43/2019
TUESDAY, THE 10th DAY OF MAY 2022
Mr.R.Pushparaj,
S/o.Ramadass,
Plat No.1196, TNHB, Thailanthoppu,
Perumallpattu Village,
Thiruvallur Taluk & District – 602 024. ......Complainant.
//Vs//
1.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited,
The General Manager,
ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veersavarkar Marg,
Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025.
2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited,
Rep. by its Regional Manager,
No.140, 2nd & 3rd floor, Chotabhai Centre,
Nugambakkam High Road, Chennai -34. .......Opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.P.Dineshkumar, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite party : Ex-Parte
This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 22.04.2022 and on hearing the arguments of the complainant and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following;-
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in repudiating the insurance claim of the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying this Commission to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.49,643/- with 24% interest along with the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony, physical unrest, deficiency in service, negligence and dereliction of duty.
The summary of complaint;-
The complainant had purchased a new Honda Motor Cycle Dio bearing Registration No.TN 05 BQ 5721, Engine No.JF39ET2040220from SVM Motors Private Limited at the cost of Rs.52,256/- as net cash and the complainant insured it with the opposite parties company under the policy number 3005/ 145055437/ 00/0000002558 on 05.03.2018 and valid from 05.03.2018 to 04.03.2019 mid night. At the time of insured, vehicle IDV value was Rs.49,643/-. It is further submitted that on 02.11.2018 at 4.30 am the complainant’s son who parked the said vehicle in the veranda of their house found it missing. Immediately the complainant informed the B4, Sevvapat Police Station and also the 2nd opposite party branch office in Chennai. The 1st opposite party sent a reminder to the complainant in the claim No. MOT08105088 requesting to furnish certain materials and in the mean time the complainant was searching for the vehicle seriously. The complainant also approached the police officers several times but they informed him that they were searching for the stolen bike but they did not register any FIR. The 1st opposite party sent a second reminder to the complainant with reference No.100119162954 dated 10.01.2019 to furnish the required materials within a period of 14 days but as the complainant was seriously searching for the vehicle and approaching the police officers, he could not submit the FIR even after the 2nd reminder was sent. Only after the complainant lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of the police, Thiruvallur District with regard to the theft the concerned police station was directed to register the FIR and thus their occurred the delay in filing the FIR. Hence, the delay in filing the FIR is not due to the mistake on the part of the complainant. The complainant further submits that the FIR was registered on 29.09.2019 in crime No.128/2019 under Section 379 IPC. In the mean time the opposite parties closed the complainant’s Motor theft claim though at the time of theft the complainant had full insurance for the vehicle with the opposite parties. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 16.04.2019 explaining about the reason for the delay in getting the FIR copy to the opposite parties but the opposite parties did not give any reply. On 23.09.2019 the Sevvapet police Station issued the RCS No.5/2019 to the complainant intimating that the investigation was completed and the complainant’s vehicle was UNDETUCTABLE. Immediately the complainant informed the same to the 2nd opposite party but the 2nd opposite party replied that the complainant’s case has been already closed and he could take legal action. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed for the reliefs as mentioned above before this Commission.
The opposite parties though initially appeared through a counsel had not filed any written version in spite of sufficient time was given hence they were called and set ex-parte on 06.02.2020.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and submitted documents marked as Ex. A1 to A8.
The points for consideration are :-
(1) Whether the complainant was successful in proving the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
(2) If so, what relief the complainant is entitled to?
Point No.1 :-
From the complainant pleadings and the proof affidavit of the complainant and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8, the following facts stands proved by the complainant;
That the certificate cum policy document for the vehicle dated 05.03.2018 was marked as ExA1. As per the document it is seen that the subject vehicle was insured with the opposite parties;
That the FIR dated 29.03.2019 was marked as Ex.A2 which shows that the police complaint was registered on 29.03.2019 for the theft that had occurred on 01.11.2018 at 11.30hrs;
That the repudiation letter dated 09.04.2019 sent by the opposite parties was marked as EX.A3 in which it has been specifically mentioned that the theft was intimated belatedly which is a violation of the policy conditions;
That the postal acknowledgement and legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties were marked as Ex.A4;
That the letter given by the complainant to the opposite parties to consider his claim dated 25.05.2019 was marked as Ex.A5;
That the tax invoice for the vehicle dated 03.03.2018 was marked as Ex.A6 in which it is seen that a total amount of Rs.52,256/- has been paid by the complainant to the dealer SBM Motors towards purchase of the vehicle;
That the Certificate of Registration for the vehicle dated 07.03.2018 was marked as Ex.A7;
That the report dated 23.09.2019 issued by the B4 Sevvapet police Station was marked as Ex.A8 in which it has been informed that the stolen vehicle was “undetectable’.
Heard the oral arguments adduced by the learned counsel for the complainant and also perused the written arguments filed by him. It is the specific case of the complainant that the vehicle left in the varanda of the complainant’s house on 01.11.2018 was found missing at 4.00 am and that immediately the same was intimated to the police and also the opposite parties/insurance company. It is further submitted by the Counsel that the 1st opposite party has sent a reminder to the complainant in claim No. MOTO8105088 requesting to furnish 11 materials within seven days and in the mean time the complainant was searching for the vehicle with the help of the police. Further submitted that though the complainant was approaching the police station requesting for an FIR copy, they simply said that they were searching for the bike and that immediate registration of FIR was not good. Only after the complainant approached the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District requesting him for speedy investigation an FIR came to be registered by the Sevvapet Police Station, Thiruvallur District on 29.03.2019. Hence the counsel submitted that the delay in filing FIR is not a mistake on the part of the complainant and that the opposite parties repudiating the claim on the ground that the police was not intimated about the theft immediately was unsustainable and sought for the complaint to be allowed.
We are unable to accept the contentions raised by the complainant that he is not responsible for the delay in filing the FIR with the police station intimating about the theft of the vehicle. Though it has been contended by him that he gave immediate information to the police station about the theft no material evidence was produced by him in proof of the same. It is seen that the FIR was lodged on 29.03.2019 almost after five months from the date of theft that took place on 02.11.2018. Though it has been submitted that the opposite parties sent remainders to the complainant for production of certain materials with regard to the claim, nothing was produced by the complainant. In such circumstances, we are unable to accept the submissions made by the complainant that he gave immediate information about the theft to the police station and the insurance company. It has been held in various Apex Court decisions that immediate information about theft of a vehicle is very much essential for the reason that if the police machinery is set in motion immediately it will be helpful for them to nab the criminals immediately and to prevent the vehicle from taking far away from the place of theft and also dismantling the vehicle. Even in a recent decision rendered by the Apex Court in Gurshinder Singh vs Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd, dated 24th January, 2020, the same view has been reiterated in following words;
“It provides, that in case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under the policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender. The object behind giving immediate notice to the police appears to be that if the police is immediately informed about the theft or any criminal act, the police machinery can be set in motion and steps for recovery of the vehicle could be expedited. In a case of theft, the insurance company or a surveyor would have a limited role. It is the police, who acting on the FIR of the insured, will be required to take immediate steps for tracing and recovering the vehicle. Per contra, the surveyor of the insurance company, at the most, could ascertain the factum regarding the theft of the vehicle”.
The above referred decision discusses the delay in giving information to the insurance company though immediate information to the police was given. However, in the present case even the FIR was lodged with a delay of five months and no convincing reason was given by the complainant for the same. It is also specifically mentioned in the repudiation letter dated 09.04.2019 (Ex. A3) that the intimation to the insurer belatedly amounts to breach of policy conditions in the following words.
“Your above mentioned vehicle was stolen on 02nd November 2018 and FIR for the same has still not been lodged by you. This is violation of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy. The FIR should have been immediately lodged after the theft. The Motor Insurance Policy issued to you states. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of claim under the policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender.
We have to further draw your attention that you have intimated claim to insurer after 5 days of date of loss. This is violation of policy condition. After the incidence took place, the claim should have been immediately lodged with the insurer. As per policy conditions- Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require.
In the circumstance, you are therefore informed that the above captioned claim as made by you hereby stands as “No Claim”
Therefore, it is also made clear that the delay in informing the police about the theft of the vehicle is a clear violation of policy conditions. In such circumstances the repudiation of the claim cannot be construed as deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Thus we hold that the complainant has failed to prove that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service. Merely for the reason that opposite parties failed to appear and failed to contest the case, the complaint cannot be allowed. Point is answered accordingly as against the complainant.
Point 2:-
As we have held above that the complainant had failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. In fact and circumstances no order as to costs.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 10th day of May 2022.
-Sd- -Sd- -Sd- MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 05.03.2018 Copy of Insurance Policy. Xerox
Ex.A2 29.03.2019 FIR copy Xerox
Ex.A3 ……………. Letter from opposite parties to the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A4 16.04.2019 Legal notice issued by the complainant’s counsel to the opposite parties. Xerox
Ex.A5 25.05.2019 Complainant given a Representation ICICI Lombard Grievance Redressal with Ack card Xerox
Ex.A6 03.03.2018 Tax- Invoice. Xerox
Ex.A7 ………….. Complainant’s bike RC Book. Xerox
Ex.A8 23.09.2019 Copy of the RCs issued by the Sevvappet police. Xerox
List of documents filed by the oppostie party;
Nil
-Sd- -Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
