Orissa

Cuttak

CC/46/2016

Suryamani Tripathy - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

SC Dash

28 Nov 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

C.C No.46/2016

      Suryamani Tripathy,

     At:Naraj,Marthapur,PO:Naraj,

     P.S:Barang,Dist:Cuttack-753006.                                        … Complainant.

 

                                Vrs.

 

1. Satyabrata Das,Manager,

ICICI LOMBARD General Insurance Company (G.I.C) Ltd.,

At:Apeejay House,7^th & 8^th Floor,15 Park street,

City Kolkata,Pin-700016,State:West  Bengal.

 

2. Manager,ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd.,

Srikailash Plaza,Shop No.17,18,19 & 20,

Plot No.597,597/1017,Link Road,Cuttack

PO/PS:Madhupatna,CuttackOdisha.

 

3. Santosh Kumar(Insurance Investigator),

Jharkhand,Bihar & Orissa,ICICI Lombard Ltd.,

Office at:Qr. No.A/41,EEF Colony,Tatisilway,

Ranchi,Jharkhand.

 

4. Sunil Kumar Gupta,(Insurance Agent) ICCI

Lombard House,414,Veer Savarkar Marg,

Near Sidhi Vinayak Temple,Prabhadevi,

Mumbai-400025.                                                                             … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:   06.04.2016

Date of Order: 28.11.2017.

 

For the complainant:               Sri S.C.Das,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps              :               Sri S.K.Sarangi,Advocate & Associates.

 

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy,Member.

                The case is against the O.Ps for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

1. Shortly the case that the complainant purchased one Hero Honda Motorcycle on 17.10.2013 for Rs.49,252/-(Annexure-1) and the said vehicle was duly insured with O.Ps vide certificate-cum-policy No.3005/2010788975/0000002034 on payment of premium worth Rs.1087/-.(Annexure-2).  The vehicle was also registered with Registering Authority,Cuttack vide Regd. No.OD-05-E-4325 on 22.10.2013(Annexure-3).  The vehicle was stolen on 16.02.2014 by some miscreants from the outdoor campus of S.C.B.Medical College, Cuttack against which FIR was duly lodged with outpost of S.C.B.Medical,Cuttack.(Annexure-4).  The facts relating to theft of the motorcycle was intimated to O.P.No.2 in writing (Annexure-5).  Since no action was taken on the Fir dt.16.02.2014, the petitioner was constrained to file ICC case No.634/2014 in the court of SDJM,(Sadar),Cuttack on 27.05.2014 and pursuant to the order and direction passed on 17.07.2014 by the learned SDJM,Cuttack, the concerned IIC,Mangalabag P.S registered P.S Case No.132/2014 U/S 379 IPC on 28.07.2014 and accordingly the intimation about the theft of the motorcycle was intimated by the police to the STA,Cuttack on 28.07.2014.(Annexure-6).  The claim relating to the motorcycle was also registered with the O.Ps vide claim No.MOT 04051591 as intimated vide their letter dt.12.09.2014 (Anenxure-7).  The O.P No.3 vide reminder-1 intimated the petitioner on 20.11.2014 to submit financial statement and DTO  intimation,key-1 in order to process the claim(Annexure-8) and accordingly the petitioner submitted the same by registered post on 28.02.2015(Annexure-9).  The O.Ps repudiated the claim on 09.03.2015 intentionally on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR as well as intimation made to the company without taking into consideration the inaction on the part of the local police as well as the fact of filing ICC case No.634/2014 before SDJM(Sadar) and the subsequent action by the police in pursuant to the order dt.17.07.2014 passed in the said case.(Annexure-10).  The petitioner is not at all responsible for such delay which is neither intentional nor whimsical. On 11.05,.2015 the O.P No.1 has intimated the complainant has “no claim”.(Annexure-11).  The action taken by O.Ps is intentional, arbitrary and illegal which amounts to unfair trade practice.  The complainant had availed finance from “Capital First Ltd.”,Bhubaneswar Branch,Unit-9,Bhubaneswar who has demanded an amount of Rs.8763/- for repayment from the petitioner.(Annexure-12).

Finding no other way, the complainant has taken shelter under this Hon’ble Forum.  He has prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay the insurance amount of the vehicle i.e. Rs.49,252/-, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of business, Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for mental tension and agony and a further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.  Thus he has made a total claim of Rs.99,252/-.

2. The O.Ps (1 to 4) vide their written version dt.09.08.2016 have intimated that the vehicle was stolen on 16.02.2014.  The police registered the case after the delay of 162 days and intimation to the Insurance Company was made after 209 days of the incident.  The allegations made by the complainant are false and there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.
3. We have gone through the case records in details.  Both the parties were absent on many dates of hearing and no steps were taken by them on such dates also.  We have observed that the complainant had purchased a Dream Yuga (CB 110ME) motorcycle for Rs.51,844/- and the same was duly insured with ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance vide Policy No. 3005/2010788975/0000002034 for the period from 17.10.2013 to 16.10.2014 for a total value of Rs.49,252/-.  The said vehicle was registered vide Regd. No.OD-05E-4325 with Registration Authority, Cuttack.  It was also learnt from the petitioner that the vehicle was stolen from SCB Medical College campus on 16.02.2014.  Since the police did not accept the FIR the complainant filed a ICC case in the court of SDJM(S) vide No.634 of 2014 on 27.05.2014.  On 17.07.2014 the Hon’ble Court directed the IIC,Mangalabag to register the complaint petition within 24 hours and to report compliance promptly.  Accordingly the FIR was registered vide G.R.Case No.1266/2014 on 28.07.2014.  Intimation regarding theft of the vehicle was intimated to STA on 28.10.2014 and intimation was also given to O.P Insurance Company on 28.10.2014.  A surveyor was appointed for the purpose on 12.09.2014.  Vide letter dt.09.03.2015 the O.P,Insurance Company asked the complainant to intimate the reasons of delay for giving intimation to the police after 162 days and intimating the insurance company after 209 days of the incident, failing which the claim shall be closed for non-compliance of condition No.1 of the policy.  Vide letter dt.11.05.2015 the O.P, Insurance Company intimated the complainant that the vehicle was stolen on 16.02.2014 and intimation to police was given after 162 days.  The Insurance policy states that “in case of theft or criminal act which maybe 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”.  The claim was also intimated to insurer after 208 days of date of loss.  As per policy conditions “notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require.”  The O.Ps also intimated vide the said letter that the above claim stands as “No claim”.

Thus it is clear that the O.Ps have treated the claim as “No claim” due to the reasons that intimation was given to police after 162 days and to insurance company after 208 days of the theft of the vehicle.  The complainant has not given any specific reason for making such delay in informing the police and giving intimation to the insurer.  In case the FIR was not accepted by police on 16.02.2014 the complainant could have filed the case with SDJM,Cuttack immediately thereafter.  There was no problem in intimating the insurer immediately which the complainant has not done and intimated the insurer after 208 days.  Such an act is against the policy conditions.  Vide Revision Petition No.1241 of 2015 it was decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 18.04.2017 that “Delay in reporting to insurer about theft of vehicle would be a violation of condition of policy”. [2017(2) CPR 558 (NC)].

It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Parvesh Chandar Chadha in Civil appeal No.6739 of 2010 arising out of SLP© No.12741 of 2010 that “In terms of policy issued by the appellant, the respondent was duty bound to inform it about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident; on account of delayed intimation the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same.  Unfortunately all the consumer Foras omitted to consider this grave lapse on the part of the respondent and directed the appellant to settle his claim on non-standard basis.  In our view the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the respondent despite of the fact that he had not complied with the terms of policy.”

                                                                                ORDER

Basing on the facts and circumstances as stated above, the complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps rather the complainant is at fault for intimating the insurer after 208 days of the theft of the insured vehicle.  Hence the case is dismissed on contest.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 28^th day of November,2017 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

   (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                         Member.

                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                  (  Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                         President.

 

                                                                                                 (Smt. Sarmistha Nath) 

                                                                                                Member(W).