Date of filing: 25.03.2014.
Date of disposal: 17.09.2014.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., President (FAC)
Sri S. Sreeram, B.Com., B.A., B.L., Member
Wednesday, the 17th day of September, 2014
C.C.No.71 of 2014
Between:
Munagala Chiranjeevi, S/o Satyanarayana, Hindu, Aged about 43 years, Business, R/o.D.No.2-15-52/5, Pathuru, Opp: Telephone Exchange, Narasaraopet, Guntur District.
…..Complainant.
And
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Rep: by its Manager, Osman Plaza, 6-3-352/1, 3rd Floor, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500 034.
.. … Opposite party.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 7.8.2014, in the presence of Sri Ch. Sreepathi Rao, advocate for complainant; Sri D. Ravi Kiran, advocate for opposite party; and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S. Sreeram)
This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party directing it to pay Rs.40,659/- to the complainant being the declared value (IDV) of his motor cycle, to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses and other reliefs.
1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant is the registered owner of the Hero Honda Splendor Pro motor cycle bearing No. AP 07 AX 8788 and the same is insured with the opposite party vide policy bearing No.3005/62254842/00/000 and the period of insurance is from 25-11-2010 to 24-11-2011. While so, on 18-10-2011 the father-in-law of complainant Chitirala Seetha Ramanjaneyulu took the said motor cycle and went to Miryalaguda to meet his business work and parked the same in the premises of Jagruthi Rice Industries, Miryalaguda and locked the same and that on 19-10-2011 he went there to get his vehicle and found the same missing and after making enquiries, he gave report on 20-10-2011 to Miryalaguda I town P.S besides informing to opposite party. On 24-10-2011 the opposite party issued a letter acknowledging the claim and the complainant submitted claim form. But the Miryalaguda police registered the crime on 12-12-2011 in Cr.No.134/2011 under Sec.379 IPC for the reasons best known to them. The opposite party on 6-1-2012 sent a letter to the complainant stating that there is a delay of 54 days in lodging FIR and also requested to produce some more documents and the complainant submitted the same. Later on the directions of the opposite party, the complainant approached Insurance Ombudsman and made a representation on 10-4-2013, but the Ombudsman could not entertain the same. Further the opposite party also till today not settled the claim and kept the same aside and as such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence, the complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite party. The opposite party made its appearance and filed version denying the material allegations of the complaint and submitted that there is a delay of 54 days in lodging FIR and that as per the investigation and charge sheet of police, the vehicle was parked on 18-10-2011 and that the father-in-law of complainant could not visit the Miryalaguda till 12-12-2011 and gave report on 12-12-2011 and that there is quiet contradiction in the version of complainant and that the complainant has violated the conditions of the policy and that due to the delay in lodging FIR, it prevented the police to trace out the vehicle and that the complainant is not maintainable against the opposite party and finally prays to dismiss the complaint.
3. The complainant filed his chief affidavit reiterating the material averments of the complaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A10 on his behalf. The Legal Manager of opposite party filed chief affidavit and got marked Ex.B1 to B3 on its behalf.
4. Heard both sides and perused the record.
5. Now the points that stood for consideration are
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in settling the claim of complainant?
- If so, to what relief.
Point No.1:
6. The undisputed facts in this case are that the complainant is the registered owner of subject theft vehicle bearing No. AP 07 AX 8788 and the same is insured with the opposite party vide policy No.3005/62254842/00/000 and the same is in force from 25.11.2010 to 24.11.2011. Ex.A9 certificate of registration establishes the ownership of complainant and Ex.A10/Ex.B1 policy schedule discloses that the vehicle was insured with the opposite party. The opposite party is also not disputing the said facts.
7. The main grievance of the complainant is that on 18-10-2011 the father-in-law of complainant took the said motor cycle and went to Miryalaguda and parked the same in the premises of Jagruthi Rice Industries, Miryalaguda and on 19-10-2011 he went to the premises and found missing of same and he informed the same to the opposite party as well as Miryalaguda I town police on 20-10-2011 and that the opposite party acknowledged the claim, but so far not settled the claim on the ground that the complainant has violated the conditions of the policy as there is a delay of 54 days in lodging compliant with police. The opposite party is not denying the factum of informing to them about the theft of motor cycle. Ex.A2 letter dt.24.10.2011 of opposite party strengthens the said fact. The contention of the complainant is that after making enquiries for the vehicle, his father-in-law made a complaint to the police on 19-10-2011 itself, but they registered the FIR on 12-12-2011. In this regard, the contention of opposite party is that there is contradiction in the version of complainant with regard to giving of report to police.
8. On perusal of documents i.e. Ex.A3 FIR and the report appended to the same, it is clear that the FIR was registered on 12-12-2011 though the theft has taken place on 18-10-2011. The report given by the father-in-law of complainant discloses that he parked the motor cycle in the premises of Jagruthi Rice Industries, Miryalaguda on 18-10-2011 and that he could not come to Miryalaguda till 12.12.2011 and on 12.12.2011 he visited the rice mill premises and found missing of motor cycle and giving report. In the column NO.8 of Ex.A3 FIR, the reason for delay is mentioned as ‘searched for the vehicle’. The Ex.A6 Final report submitted by Miryalaguda police before the Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Miryalaguda where under the police referred the case as ‘undetectable’ also contains the above said fact. But as per the own version of complainant, the father-in-law of complainant found missing of vehicle on 19-10-2011 itself and the complainant informed the same to opposite party and his father-in-law gave report to police also on 19-10-2011. So, as per Ex.A3 FIR, there is a delay of 54 days in giving report to police. The condition No.1 of Ex.A10/Ex.B1 policy mandates that
“Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require ………………….. and in case of theft or other act, which may be subject of a claim under this policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company”
9. In the case on hand, the complainant has given information to the opposite party about theft of vehicle on 20-10-2011, whereas the theft occurred on 18-10-2011. But the complainant failed to inform the same to police immediately after occurrence of theft and as such there is a delay of 54 days in lodging FIR. In this regard, the contention of complainant is that his father-in-law though gave report under Ex.A1 on 20-10-2011, the Miryalaguda police did not register the case till 12-12-2011 and registered the case by obtaining fresh report, for the reasons best known to them. The complainant or his father-in-law being prudent men ought to have insisted the police to register the case as and when they gave report to police on 20-10-2011. Further when a report is given to police, the complainant or his father-in-law atleast ought to have insisted for issuance of acknowledgement from the police. Further there is a contradiction in the version of complainant with regard to identifying the missing of vehicle. As per the contents of complaint, the father-in-law of complainant found missing of vehicle on 19-10-2011 itself and informed the same to opposite party. But as per report under Ex.A3 FIR and the Final report under Ex.A6, the father-in-law of complainant after parking the vehicle on 18-10-2011 did not visit the place till 12.12.2011 and found missing of same on 12.12.2011. When the report given by father-in-law of complainant under Ex.A3 contains the different facts from Ex.A1 report, what prevented the complainant or his father-in-law from questioning the police about mentioning different facts. Further the complainant also not submitted any General Diary of the concerned police station to ascertain the fact of giving report on 20-10-2011. All the above facts disclose that the complainant has not properly explained the delay in giving report to police and as such he has violated the conditions of the policy.
10. The complainant has relied on the decision of Hon’ble State Commission, Chattisghar in FA No.12/782, where under it is held that
‘in case of theft of vehicle, issue of breach of policy conditions is not germane to the issue and that the insurance company was required to pay at least compensation on non-standard basis”
In the said case, there was delay of nearly 16 days in lodging FIR and in giving intimation to insurance company about theft of vehicle.
11. In this context, the opposite parties relied on the decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2014 (1) CPR 427 NC Between : Ramesh Chandra Vs. ICICI Lombord General Insruance Company Ltd., where under the Hon’ble National Commission not interfered with the order of Hon’ble State Commission which upheld the order of District Forum who allowed the complaint and granted compensation on non-standard basis. It is further held that delay of 11 days in reporting the theft to authorities obviously had prevented the insurance company as also the police to start timely investigation with a view to locate and recover the vehicle and also held that the insured had failed to take proper care to protect the interest of insurance company and justified the repudiating of claim.
12. The opposite party relied on the decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2014(1) CPR 473 NC, where under it is held that
“Immediate intimation to the police and filing of FIR are of paramunt importance in theft cases and any delay in this respect will have serious adverse impact on the interest of insurance company”
And also relied on a Revision Petition No.4762 of 2012 on 18.1.2013; Surendar Vs National Ins. Co. Ltd., and Revision Petition No.3936 of 2012 on 21.1.2014; Budha Ganesh Vs New India Insurance Company Ltd.
13. Now coming to the case of hand, there is an abnormal delay of 54 days in lodging FIR and the complainant has not explained the said delay satisfactorily. As such relying on the decisions submitted by the opposite party supra, we are of the opinion that the delay of 54 days in lodging FIR with police had prevented the police to start timely investigation with a view to locate and recover the vehicle and that the said delay will have serious adverse impact on the interest of company. As such the repudiation of claim by opposite party is justifiable one and we found no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
Point No.2:
14. In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs.
Typewritten by Steno N. Hazarathaiah, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 17th day of September, 2014.
PRESIDENT (FAC) MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: -None- For the opposite party: -None-
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 20.10.2011 Photocopy of complaint given to Miryalaguda I Town police.
Ex.A2 24.10.2011 Photocopy of letter issued by OP to complainant.
Ex.A3 12.12.2011 Photocopy of FIR.
Ex.A4 06.01.2012 Photocopy of letter issued by OP to complainant.
Ex.A5 02.02.2012 Photocopy of letter issued by OP to complainant.
Ex.A6 Copy of final report in Cr.No.134/2011.
Ex.A7 10.04.2013 Copy of letter issued by complainant to OP.
Ex.A8 18.04.2013 Photocopy of letter issued by insurance ombudsman to complainant.
Ex.A9 Photocopy registration certificate.
Ex.A10 Photocopy of certificate cum policy schedule.
On behalf of the opposite party:
Ex.B1 Photocopy of certificate cum policy schedule.
Ex.B2 Photocopy of motor theft claim form.
Ex.B3 02.02.2012 Photocopy of letter issued by OP to complainant.
PRESIDENT (FAC).
