Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/22/2017

N.Uma Maheswara Reddy, S/o M.Bali Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Manager - Opp.Party(s)

K.Ramanarayana Reddy, N.Madhusudhana Reddy

31 Jan 2019

ORDER

         

 

                                                                                                Filing Date: 29-05-2017                                                                                                               Order Date: 31-01-2019

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

                                                         Smt.T.Anitha, Member

 

 THURSDAY THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN

 

C.C.No.22/2017

Between

M. Uma Maheswara Reddy,

S/o. M. Bali Reddy, Hindu, aged about 35 years,

Residing at D.No. 8-364, Sai Nagar, Rajeev Nagar,

Tirupti Town & Urban Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                … Complainant

 

And

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Represented by its Manager,

10-14-577, RV Towers, Tilak Road,

Beside Central Park, Tirupati – 1.                                     … Opposite party

 

        This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 23.01.2019 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri. K.Ramanarayana Reddy&Sri.N.Madhusudhana Reddy, counsels for the complainant, and Sri. K. Prem Kumar Karanam, counsel for the opposite party having stood over till this day and for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

        This complaint is filed by the complainant under sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining the deficiency in service on part of the opposite party and prayed this Forum to direct the opposite party to pay the claim amount of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a., from the date of the complaint till realization and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant  and for deficiency in  service and to pay costs of the complaint.

        2. The brief facts of the case are:  The complainant purchased the vehicle Toyota Qualis bearing Registration No. AP-03-N-4446 by taking financial assistance from the Shriram City Union Finance, Tirupati and the same was insured with the opposite party Insurance Company vide “Private Car Package Policy No. 3001/60899652/01/B00 and the period of insurance starts from 22.09.2011 to 21.09.2012 and he paid premium amount of Rs.10,987/-. The complainant further submits that he parked the said vehicle in front of his cousin brother’s house on 29.02.2012 at about 7-00 pm, and he left his native place for some urgent work. On 01.03.2012, when he returned to his brother’s house at Madhura Nagar Tirupati, he did not find his vehicle at the place where he was parked. He and his family members searched for the vehicle in surrounding areas, but he did not trace out the vehicle. The complainant further submits that due to lack of knowledge he did not lodge the complaint immediately with the police and later he gave a complaint in the Alipiri Police Station and same was registered in crime No. 205/2012 on 21.06.2012. Meanwhile the complainant informed to the opposite party insurance company about the theft and submitted a letter to the opposite party. After investigation the police filed a charge sheet and referred the case stating that the vehicle was undetected.

        The complainant further submits that, he made a claim before the opposite party by submitting the relevant documents, but the opposite party failed to settle the claim of the complaint. Hence the complainant caused a legal notice to the opposite party on 16.11.2015 and same was received by the opposite party, but they did not choose to reply the same and settle the claim of the complainant. As the said vehicle was hypothecated to the finance company, the complainant paid the EMIs even though the vehicle was stolen and not in his possession due to pressure by Finance Company. Hence he suffered financial loss which is nothing but deficiency in service on part of the opposite party. Hence he filed the present complaint.

        3. Opposite party filed written version by admitting the policy of the complainant with them and the said policy was valid from 29.02.2012 to 03.07.2013 covered by the reasons subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and while availing the said policy he declared his vehicle IDV value as Rs. 3,50,000/-. The opposite party further submits that the complainant intimated to them about the theft on 03.07.2012 stating that the vehicle bearing registration No. AP-03-4-4446 was stolen on 29.02.2012 while he parked his vehicle in front of his cousin brother’s house on Madhura Nagar, Tirupati. The complainant submitted his claim along with RC, Insurance Policy and also FIR.  As per the FIR contents, the alleged theft  occurred on 29.02.2012 and he lodged complaint with police authorities on 21.06.2012 i.e. after lapse of 113 days of alleged theft and he intimated to the opposite party insurance company on 03.07.2012 i.e. after lapse of 125 days of loss of vehicle and submitted claim form on 24.07.2017. The opposite party further submits that after receiving the intimation they deputed an insurance surveyor to investigate in to the matter and the investigator submitted his report dt: 01.08.2012 confirming the theft of the vehicle.

         The opposite party further submits that, after receiving the investigation report and after thorough scrutinizing the papers submitted by the complainant, came to a conclusion that there was a delay of 113 days in intimating and registering the FIR with regard to the theft of his vehicle to the police authorities and a delay of 125 days in intimating the theft of his vehicle to the insurer i.e. opposite party company and thereby the complainant herein clearly violated the terms and conditions of the policy issued to his vehicle. Hence the claim of the complainant was repudiated and same was duly intimated by way of letter dt: 23.10.2012 by mentioning the reasons for repudiation.  The opposite party further submits that the complainant, while submitting his claim, has not handed over the first key to the opposite party and also he has not given any valid reasons for non-submitting the key to the opposite party and produced the second key which was not at all used by him which clearly reveals that, the complainant left the key in the vehicle and thereby made it easy for the culprit to commit theft of the vehicle. Hence the theft was occurred only because of negligence and carelessness of the complainant and hence they are not liable to pay any compensation claimed by him.

         4. The opposite party further submits that, the police records which was filed by the complainant very clearly reveals that the final report was filed by the police authorities by declaring that, the said case was closed as undetectable one. Hence it clearly shows that the complainant lodged the complaint after lapse of 113 days from the date of offence and hence investigation to trace out the vehicle became very difficult even for police authorities. Hence the alleged allegations of the complainant that the opposite party not processed and settled his claim are invented in order to get wrongful gain. The opposite party further submits that as per the terms and conditions of the policy issued to the complainant’s vehicle that “ in case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject to 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 and further as per the terms and conditions of the policy”, “Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage or in the event of any claim and there after the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall requires”.  Hence the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy by not registering the theft of the vehicle immediately with the police authorities and also failed to give written information to the opposite party immediately after the theft of the vehicle and hence they are not liable to pay any damages claimed by him. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part as they processed the claim of the complainant and repudiated the claim for the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy within three months. Hence they are not responsible or liable for payment of damages as alleged by the complainant for deficiency in service. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

         5.   The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex: A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of the opposite party one B. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Sri. Venkateswarulu working as legal manager in opposite party company, filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex:B1 to B6 were marked. Both parties filed their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

        6. Now the point for consideration is:-

        Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of the opposite party? If so, to what extent, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

                   7.Point:-  The main case of the complainant is,  he purchased Toyota Qualis bearing Registration No. AP-03-N-4446 by taking loan from Shriram City Union Finance, Tirupati and the said vehicle was insured with the opposite party company and Ex.A1 R.C of the vehicle and Ex.A2 policy copy were filed. In order to prove Ex:A1 pertains to Private Car Package Policy No. 3001/60899652/01/B00. For the period of insurance from 22.09.2011 to 21.09.2012 midnight, the opposite party issued the policy under Ex:A2. The counsel for the complainant stated that, he parked the above said vehicle in front of his cousin brother’s house at Tirupati on 29.02.2012 at about 7-00pm and he left for his native village for some urgent work and returned on 01.03.2012 and observed that his vehicle was stolen by unknown offenders and that he and his family members searched for the said vehicle on 01.03.2012 but, he could not trace out the same and due to lack of knowledge he did not lodge the complaint about the theft before Alipiri Police station immediately and on coming to know that, the complaint has to be lodged before the concerned police station, the complainant immediately lodged the complaint before the Alipiri Police station but they have taken the report submitted by him and the police dodged to register the same and at last on 21.06.2012, the FIR was registered in crime No. 205/2012 under Ex:A3 and meanwhile the complainant informed about the theft to the opposite party and submitted a letter of claim before the opposite party with necessary documents. But after receipt of the all relevant documents such as FIR, charge sheet etc i.e. under Ex:A4 the opposite party has been postponing to settle the amount and failed to finalize the claim. At last the complainant issued a legal notice on 16.11.2015 to the opposite party, calling upon them to settle the claim under Ex:A5, after receipt of the same the opposite party neither issued any reply nor complied the same.

                    8. The opposite party counsel further submitted that, the said vehicle was hypothecated to the Shriram City Union Finance, Tirupati and as per the policy of insurance, the claim amount has to be adjusted towards the amount due to the finance company, as the said vehicle was hypothecated to the finance company and the remaining amount if any is payable to the complainant and as the opposite party has been postponing to settle the claim, and in the meanwhile finance company is also mounting pressure on the complainant and charged penal interest, the complainant left with no other option, cleared the loan to the finance company by taking loan from outside and thereby the complainant suffered with great financial loss due to  deficiency in service on part of the opposite party as they failed to settle the claim . On clearing the loan which is due to Shriram City Union Finance, the finance company issued no objection certificate and the same was submitted for cancelling the hypothecation agreement .

                    The counsel for the complainant further submitted that at the time of the submitting claim with the relevant documents to the opposite party, he has handed over the first key and second key of the above said vehicle to the opposite party. But the opposite party officials returned the first key to the complainant by stating it is not necessary to submit both keys for processing claim, hence the complainant kept the first key with him. The counsel for the complainant further submitted that till the date of filing the  present complaint, the opposite party has not settle the claim and the claim is still pending before the opposite party which is nothing but deficiency in service on part of the opposite party. The counsel for the complainant further argued that he has not violated any conditions of the policy hence the opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount.

                    The counsel for the opposite party, by admitting the policy of the complainant contended that by the date of the theft, the policy was in force and the said vehicle was stolen on 29.02.2012 by unknown offenders but, he gave a complaint to the police on 21.06.2012 i.e. after lapse of 113 days from the date of the theft and the complainant intimated the alleged theft to the opposite party insurance company on 03.07.2012 i.e. after lapse 125 days from the date of the theft and submitted his claim on 24.07.2012.The counsel for the opposite party further argued that, after receipt of the claim they appointed investigator to investigate the matter and after thorough investigation the investigator filed his report under Ex:A3 clearly stating that the delay of registering FIR is 113 days and delay in informing to the opposite party is 125 days further stated that the complainant has not filed any documentary proof such as General Diary or complaint copy which he gave to the police authorities. Hence it clearly shows that the complainant in order to get wrongful gain, falsely stated that he immediately gave the complaint to the police. Hence they repudiated the claim of the complainant and intimated the same by way of letter dt: 23.10.2012 by repudiating under Ex:B5, as stating that the complainant failed to give the complaint immediately after the theft.

                    9.  The counsel for opposite party further submits that,  the terms and conditions of the policy issued to the complainant’s vehicle says “ in case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject to 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” and further as per the terms and conditions of the policy”, “Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage or in the event of any claim and there after the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall requires”. In this particular case also the complainant clearly violated the terms and conditions of the policy by not registering the theft of the vehicle immediately with the police authorities and further failed to intimate to the opposite party immediately after the theft of the vehicle, hence they are not liable to pay any damages as claimed by the complainant. Hence the counsel for the opposite party submits there is no deficiency in service on part of them in processing the claim as they processed the claim but repudiated the claim for violation of terms and conditions of the company within three months. Hence they are not liable to pay any damages as alleged by the complainant for deficiency in service and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                     10. There is no dispute regarding the theft of the vehicle of the complainant on 29.02.2012 when he parked it in front of his cousin brother’s house and also there is no dispute regarding the insurance policy of the vehicle issued by the opposite party to the complainant.

                    11. The main contention of the complainant is, due to lack of knowledge he could not inform about the theft of the vehicle to the police immediately, but within a week he informed to the police authorities. However the police authorities did not register the complaint and finally registered FIR under Ex:A2 on 21.06.2012. But he did not file any proof to show that he informed to the police about the theft within a week.  Ex:A3 clearly shows that the FIR was registered on 21.06.2012. The complainant stated that he gave intimation to the opposite party about the theft, but the complainant has not filed any proof to show that he has intimated about the theft to the opposite party within a week. As per the Ex:B2 the date was mentioned as 24.07.2012. In Ex:B3 surveyor report it is mentioned that the complainant intimated about the theft on 03.07.2012 which is after lapse of 125 days. Hence it clearly shows that the complainant intimated to the police with a 113 days delay and intimated to the opposite party after 125 days of the incident.

                    12.  The main contention of the complainant is that, when he handed over the both the keys i.e. original and duplicate to the opposite party at the time of submitting his claim, the opposite party refused to receive both the keys and only received duplicate key which was not used by the complainant on the ground that the same is sufficient to process the claim. But in the written version the opposite party stated that at Para No.12, the complainant had not even handed over the first key to the opposite party and only produced the second key i.e. duplicate key only and further stated that it shows that the complainant left one key which was used by him with the vehicle itself and when the vehicle was parked the same was stolen by the culprits by starting the vehicle  with the key left in the vehicle and therefore the negligence is on part of the complainant.

                     But this contention of the opposite party cannot be considered in view of the fact that the complainant had deposited the other key in the forum during hearing and the same was marked as Ex:A8. In order to show that he was in possession of both original and duplicate key with him and the theft did not take place on account of leaving one key in the vehicle. The main contention of the opposite party is that if the complainant informed about the theft to the police immediately the police might have taken steps to trace out the vehicle and punish the offenders. But in this particular case as per the record there is 113 days delay in registering the FIR and 125 days delay in intimation to the insurance authorities. In this particular case the complainant in order to overcome delay of the filing of FIR relied upon decision of AIR 2017 (SC) 4836; 2017 9 SCC 724; 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 977; In R.K. Agarwal, S.Abdul Nazeer, JJ.Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and Anr. In this case the vehicle was stolen in Chopanki, Bhiwari, Rajasthan on 23.03.2010 at about 9-00 Pm and the FIR was lodged on 24.03.2010, in Police Station Tapkura, District Alwar, Rajasthan Under Section 379 IPC. Thereafter, the appellant visited the office of the first respondent but the office was found to be closed. Then the appellant went to the place of the theft and met the driver and then he went to the concerned police official. On 29.03.2010, the appellant along with the truck driver, went with the police officials for their assistance to search the vehicle and the appellant reached the village on 30.03.2010. On 31.10.2010, the appellant lodged the insurance claim with the respondent company along with necessary documents. In this case the investigator appointed and filed his report. The respondent company repudiated the claim of the appellant citing breach of condition No.1 mere information about the theft of the vehicle. Hence he filed the complaint before District Forum same was dismissed. And the appellant preferred appeal before State Commission and which was also dismissed hence he preferred revision petition before the National Commission the revision petition also dismissed by an order dt: 12.02.2012. Hence the appellant preferred an appeal before Supreme Court.  In this case our lordships held that the appellant has given cogent reasons for the delay of 8 days in informing the respondent about the incident and the investigator had verified the theft to be genuine and payment of Rs.7,85,000/-  towards the claim was approved by the Corporate Claims Manager, which, in our opinion, is just and proper. Hence the appeal was allowed and the orders of the National Commission and State Commission and District Forum are set aside and claim petition filed by the appellant is allowed and directed the respondents 1 and 2 to pay sum of Rs.8,35,000/- to the appellant with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment.  

                   13. But the facts of the above case are entirely different to case on our hand, because in the above case, there was eight days delay that too the theft occurred on 23.03.2010 and FIR was lodged on 24.03.2010 and also the appellant went to the place of the theft and he searched the vehicle along with truck driver and police officials to trace out the vehicle and finally on 31.10.2010 he submitted the claim to the insurance company. Hence there is a delay of six days for making claim to the opposite party and also the appellant immediately lodged the FIR hence the delay was clearly explained by the appellant in the above case. 

                    But in the present case there was abnormal delay of 113 days of lodging FIR and there was125 days delay in intimating about the theft to the opposite party. Hence the above decision is not of any help to complainant case. As the complainant failed to prove that he immediately informed to the police and the opposite party about the theft of the vehicle and as there is no any documentary proof, he has not explained the reasons for delay. Hence the complainant failed to satisfy this forum with regard to the delay. We therefore hold that the opposite party is justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant. Hence for the above said reasons the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

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

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 31^th day of January, 2019.

            Sd/-                                                                                                          Sd/-                                                                     

    Lady Member                                                                                                 President (FAC)

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: M. Uma Maheswara Reddy (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: B. Srinivasa Rao (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Original copy of RC stands in the name of complainant in respect of the vehicle Toyota Qualis bearing No.: AP-03-N-4446.
	Original copy of Insurance Policy No: 3001/60899652/01/B00 issued by the opposite party in respect of Toyota Qualis bearing No.AP-03-N-4446.
	Certified true copy of FIR in CrimeNo.:205/2012 of Alipiri PS.
	Certified true copy of Charge Sheet/Case Disposal Report/Final Report filed in Crime No: 205/12 of Alipiri PS before the Hon’ble IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Tirupatialong with RCS Proceedings.
	Office copy of Legal Notice Dt: 16.11.2015, with postal receipt.
	Letter addressed to the Superintendent of Post, Tirupati. Dt: 29.01.2016.
	True copy of Reply/Delivery Report issued by the Superintendent of Post, Tirupati Dt: 10.02.2016.
	First key of Toyota Qualis bearing No: AP-03-N-4446.
	Original copy of Finance clearance Certificate Dt: 14.03.2014 with Form 35.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Attested true copy of the Insurance Policy (Period of Insurance from 22.09.2011 to 21.09.2012) issued to the complainant vehicle issued by the opposite party.
	Original copy of Motor Theft Claim Form submitted by the complainant to the opposite party. Dt: 24.07.2012.
	True copy of Survey Report filed by the opposite party. Dt: 01.08.2012.
	True copy of Letter addressed to complainant by the opposite party with courier receipt.
	Attested true copy of the letter addressed to the complainant by the opposite party. Dt: 23.10.2012.
	Attested copy of terms and conditions of the policy for the vehicles private car package policy issued to the complainant vehicle by the opposite party.

 

                                                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                                   President (FAC)

 

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant, 

                  2) The Opposite party.