BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986), MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
Present: Sri P.V.Subrahmanayma, B.A.,B.L., PRESIDENT
Sri Mekala Narsimha Reddy, M.A.,LL.B.,
P.G.D.C.P.L. Male Member
Smt Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member
Dt.19.07.2010
CC.No. 50 of 2009
Between:
P. Narsimhareddy S/o Rukmareddy,
Aged about 50 yrs, Occ: Business & Agri.,
R/o H.No. 4-98/1, Cheryal Village,
Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District. ….. Complainant
And
- ICICI Lombard,
General Insurance com. Ltd.,
Rep: by Manager, Legal GBR Towers,
Third floor, Chaitnyapuri, Dilsukhnagar,
Hyderabad.
- Authorised Signatory,
ICICI Lombard,
General Insurance Com.ltd.,
Bhuvana Towers, 301 5th floor,
Secunderabad – 500 025.
- ICICI Lombard,
Genral Insurance com.ltd.,
Reg. Office, ICICI Bank Towers,
Banda Kurla Complex,
Mumbai – 400 051. ....Opposite parties
This case came up for final hearing before us on 11.06.2010 in the presence Sri. Joshi Narayan Rao, advocate for complainant, Sri. T.Sathyanarayna Advocate for opposite party Nos. 1 to 3, upon hearing arguments, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following
O R D E R
(Per Sri. P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)
This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties a)to pay an amount of Rs.70941/- towards costs of hydraulic pump and oil to the complainant b) to direct the opposite parties to pay interest @ 3% p.m. on Rs.70,941/- from the date of purchase. C) to direct the opposite parties to pay the complainant Rs.25,000/- as damages.
The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:
The complainant purchased the JCB 3 DX BACK HOE Model of 2000 CC bearing registration No. AP 23 M 2021 with financial assistance from Shriram Trasport finance and the vehicle was kept in Cheriyal, Sangareddy Mondal, Medak District. Subsequent to the purchase the complainant insured the vehicle opposite party No. 1 under the comprehensive policy, bearing No. 3008/54196657/00/B00 which is valid from 05.06.2008 to midnight of 04.06.2009.
On 06.04.2009 the complainant found the hydraulic pump connected to the JCB stolen and pipes damaged. Also about 120 liters of hydraulic oil was wasted. The hydraulic pump is the main part of the JCB and without it the vehicle will not function. The complainant registered his complaint on 08.04.2009 with S.I. of police Indrakaran. He also mentioned name of two suspects namely Ramesh and also Neerudi Narsimulu. The SI issued FIR in crime No. 41/09 U/s 379 of IPC in also conducted the scene of offence panchanama.
The complainant submitted the claim form along with the quotation to opposite party No. 2, who assured the complainant the he could puchased a new hydraulic pump and oil and submit the bill to them and he would be reimbursed Accordingly the complainant submitted the relevant document to opposite party No. 2 but the claim was rejected on the grounds that partial theft is not covered under the policy. Vide the rejection of claim No. MOT 01080102 and the same was sent to the complainant vide letter No. Hyd/MTRC/M/10501/2009, dated 08.05.2009. The complainant purchased the hydraulic pump at a cost of Rs.55,576/- and oil for Rs.14,365/-. Thus the total amounts spend is Rs.70,941/-. Hence the complaint.
The opposite party resisted by the complaint by filing counter
That the contents of the complaint is not true nor correct hence specifically denied by the these op no. 2 as such complainant put required strict proof of the same.
In reply to para no. 1 of the complaint is that these ops not aware that, the complainant has purchased the JCB3 DXBACK HOE model of 2000 CC bearing registration no. AP 23 M 2021 with the financial assistance of Shriram Transport Finance and the said vehicle was kept in the village cheriyal, Sangareddy Mandal Mdedak Sitrict and the complainant put to strict proof of the same.
In reply to para No. 2 of the complaint that the said series of the policy not tallied with this ops company as such alleged policy denied by this company. And complainant requires put to strict proof of the same.
In reply to para No. 3 of the complaint denied that on 06.04.2009 the complainant found that the Hydraulic pump connected to the above JCB was stolen away by unkonw offenders by damaging the pipes and received the said pump and due to that about 120 ltrs. Of Hydraulic oil was wasted and said hydraulic pump is main part of the JCB and without the held of that pump the JCB vehicle will not worl. And further denied that immediately the complainant made a ring to the police station, Indrakaran on 06.04.2009 and informed that the hydraulic pump fitted to his JCB machine was stolen away in the night of 05.04.2009 and informed to the opposite party No. 2 over phone who sent their surveyor by name M. Srinivas who conducted the survey and took the photographs of the damaged vehicle and informed that the claim would be settled at an earliest possible and as on the date of incident the policy is inexistence. Infact, the partial theft not overs at any point of time in that alleged claims as per terms and conditions hence the claim is liable to be dismissed.
In reply to para No. 4 of the complaint that the allegation not aware to these opposite parties that on 08.04.2009 the complainant lodged a complaint before the SI of police Indrakaran narrating above mentioned facts suspecting the stealing of the Hydraulic pump by their villagers namely Ramesh and also Neerudi Narsimulu and basing on the complaint the SI of police station, Indrakaran has registered the complaint and issued FIR in crime No. 41/09 U/sec. 379 of IPC and the SI of police Station, Indrakaran has conducted the scene of offence panchanama on 08.04.2009 if any theft occurred the complainant liable to recover from the Accused not from these alleged insured. As such these opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation.
In reply to para No. 5 of the complaint that denied that these opposite parties that, the complainant submitted the claim form along with quotation showing the cost of the stolen hydraulic pump and cost of oil to make JCB in running condition to the op no. 2 who assured the complainant that the complainant to purchase a new pump and submit a bill to enable them to reimburse the cost of the Hydraulic pump and oil etc., and explained in the above paras that theft not covers in the alleged insured policy and rest of the para also denied by these ops if any repudiated that is proper basing on the terms and conditions of the alleged policy and there is no breach of contract as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of these opposite parties, hence the claim is liable to be dismissed.
In reply to para NO. 6 of the complaint that denied by these opposite parties that the alleged policy is not covers any theft. And said repudiation is proper after verification, as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of these opposite parties and the complainant knowingly filed false claim to harass these opposite parties and the complainant is liable to answer.
In reply to para No. 7 of the complaint that this complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law against these oppoist parties as such the alleged cost of the pump, hydraulic oil, 3% interest and damages not binding on these opposite parties, hence denied by these opposite parties.
It is submitted that the complaint is delay hence itself doubtful and there is a contradiction from the claim of the complainant and complaint to police in regard to cost of theft, as such itself is not genuine. Moreover the complainant is liable to recover from the accused not from these opposite parties. Hence the complaint in C.C. No. 50/2009 is liable to be dismissed.
Brief facts of the case:
Allegations of the complainant is the complaint are that the had purchased a JCB DX BACK MOE Model of 2000 CC bearing registration No. AP 23 M 2021 with the financial assistance of Shriram Transport Finance and the which was kept in the Cheriyal Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak district.
Subsequently the vehicle was issued with opposite party No. 1 under the comprehensive policy and opposite party No. 1 issued the policy bearing No. 3008/54196657/00/B00 which valid from 05.06.2008 midnight 04.06.2009.
On 06.04.2009 the hydraulic pump belonging to the JCB was stolen and pipes were damaged and 120 ltrs of hydraulic oil was wasted. The complainant lodged the complaint before SI of police, Indrakaran and issued FIR in crime No. 41/09 U/s 379 of IPC on 08.04.2009 . He also informed opposite party No. 2, who seat their surveyor M. Srinivas to asses the damage and were informed that the claim would he settled as the policy was in existence. But there after where the complainant submitted relevant documents to opposite party No. 2, the claim was rejected on the ground that partial theft was not covered under the policy. The complainant had purchased a hydraulic pump costing Rs.55,576 and also purchased the hydraulic oil amounting to Rs.14,365/-. He has spent a total amount of Rs.70,941/-.
The opposite party repudiate the claim saying that partial theft is not caused and moreover he should recover from the accused.
Evidence affidavit of
The point for consideration is that the complainant is asking the opposite party to reimburse the amount spent by him for the hydraulic pump and oil. he is covered by their insurance policy?
Having heard the counsel documents of both the sides; it is an undisputed fact that the insurance policy was in existence at the time of the theft. Opposite party No. 1 is liable to reimburse the claim made by the complainant.
Ex.A2 is the miscellaneous package policy and the period of insurance is from 05.06.2008 to 04.06.2009 midnight.
The copy of the scene policy is also submitted by opposite party No. 1 as Ex.B1.
Now where is the policy is there a clause to say that partial theft is not covered by the insurers. There is no exclusion clause to that effect.
Ex.A7 is the letter sent by the insurance company to the complainant, stating that partial theft is not covered under this policy. They have not substantiated this by an exclusion clause in their policy. Merely stating it does not ratify their stance.
The very same letter is submitted by opposite parties as Ex.B2 once again they merely state the same thing - that partial theft is not covered by there was it made to the insured. That at the time of taking the policy he was not covered for partial theft only?
Also their surveyor M. Srinivas conducted the survey . Ex. A6 cash bills submitted by the complainant regarding purchase of hydraulic pump and hydraulic oil. He has also reported to the police at Sangareddy mandal and in FIR was lodged – Ex.A8.
As such the opposite parties did not substantiate by the statement in repudiating the claims. For the reasons stated above, we allow the complaint and is the result directing the opposite party No. 1 - to pay the total costs of Rs.70,941/- towards Hydraulic pump and Hydraulic oil.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 19.07. 2010.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER
