Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/182/2015

M.Palanisamy - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard Gic Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

party in persion

28 Mar 2018

ORDER

 

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  26.11.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  28.03.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

WEDNESDAY  THE 28^th  DAY OF MARCH 2018

 

C.C.NO.182/2015

 

 

M.Palanisamy,

No.1/4 M.G.R.Salai,

5^th Street, Vijayaragavapuram,

Saligramam,

Chennai – 600 093.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1. The Manager,

ICICI Lombard Gic Ltd.,

Chotta Bai Centre,

Nungambakkam High Road,

Chennai – 600 034.

 

2. The Manager,

Assure Solution,

AF-1- Jeyam Mani Garden Apartments,

No.26 Loco Works 3^rd Street,

Agaram, Chennai – 600 082.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 28.12.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : V.Sivaperuman

Counsel for 1st Opposite Party                : Mrs.Elveera Ravindran, K.Vinod

 

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party                       : Ex-parte (29.01.2016)

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to pay the intimation claim of amount a Rs.2,77,813/- and also to pay compensation for mental agony with costs of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant is the owner of the TATA ACE vehicle bearing registration No: TN 20 CY 3116. He insured the said vehicle with the opposite party for the period 25.07.2013 to 24.07.2014 on payment of premium Rs.19,339/-. On 30.11.2013, the complainant as usual parked his vehicle in front of his house in the night. Next day morning on 01.12.2013, he found that the vehicle was missing.

          2. Immediately the complainant informed the 1^st opposite party through phone. He also informed the police on 01.12.2013 itself about the theft. He was asked to search the vehicle through his own source and he also searched. However, he did not able to trace his vehicle. The complainant again went to the police station and informed the fact, the police officers pressurized him to write the date of theft on 05.12.2013 and then only the FIR will be registered. Hence the complainant mentioned date of theft as 05.12.2013 and FIR was registered.

          3. The opposite parties are bound to settle the insurance claim to the complainant and they failed to do the same. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay the claim amount of Rs.2,77,813/- and also to pay compensation for mental agony with costs of the complaint.

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party admits that the complainant has insured his vehicle with them. They deny that the complainant approached police on 01.12.2013 and that he was asked to search the vehicle. The FIR was registered with a delay of 14 days and informed this opposite party with delay of six days. Hence the complainant committed breach of the conditions of the policy.

          5. This opposite party has not rejected the claim of the complainant. They wrote a letter to the complainant requiring him to furnish particulars on receipt of delayed claim. Further in the FIR the date  of occurrence of mentioned as 05.12.2013 instead of 30.11.2013 / 01.12.2013. However, the complainant did not furnish the required particulars by them. Hence this opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

          6. The 2^nd opposite party called absent and remained set ex-parte on 21.09.2016.

7. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

8. POINT NO :1 

          It is an admitted fact that the complainant is the owner of the TATA ACE vehicle bearing registration No.TN 20 CY 3116 and the said vehicle was insured with the opposite party under Ex.A2 policy on payment of premium of Rs.19,339/- for the period 25.07.2013 to 24.07.2014.

          9. According to the complainant on the night of 30.11.2013 as usual he has parked his vehicle in front of his house and next day morning he did not find the vehicle on 01.12.2013 and hence the vehicle was committed theft and he immediately informed the 1^st opposite party through phone and also informed the police on the same day and however, the police only pressurized and Ex.A3 complaint that as if the theft of occurrence  taken place on 05.12.2013 and failed to do such date, the FIR will not be registered and hence he has given that date and therefore the opposite parties may be directed to pay the claim amount.

          10. Ex.A3 is the returned complaint given by the complainant to the K.K.Nagar police on 14.12.2013 that the occurrence took place on 05.12.2013. Whereas, in the complaint he had stated that the occurrence  took place on 30.11.2013/01.12.2013 night hours. The police pressurized the complainant to write the occurrence day as 05.12.2013. Even for this date he had given the complaint belatedly on 14.12.2013. Hence due to police pressure he had given date of occurrence as 05.12.2013 is unbelievable. Hence as per the available documents, the complainant preferred complaint to the police with a delay of 14 days and likewise he also gave intimation to the 1^st opposite party with a delay of six days. Mere statement of the complaint that he informed the police immediately and the opposite parties on 01.12.2013 cannot be accepted without acceptable evidence. Therefore, we hold that there is an unexplained delay as stated above in giving  complaint to police and intimation to the 1^st opposite party.

          11.   The necessity of giving complaint to police and insurance company immediately is that to trace the offender quickly. When the owner of the vehicle delays in preferring intimation to them, by the time the offender will go a long distance and cannot be traced. Such a right of tracing the offender has been deprived off by the complainant to the opposite parties in this case.

          12. However, the opposite parties required the complainant in Ex.A5 letter to explain the delay in preferring complaint and to mention the actual date of theft of vehicle. However, the complainant did not reply for the same. Even before the opposite parties rejecting the claim, the complainant approached this Forum prematurely and for the reason the complainant is not sustainable. For the forgoing discussions, we hold that this the opposite parties have not committed deficiency in service and accordingly this point is answered.

13. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 28^th day of March 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 24.07.2012                   V.S.T.Motors Ltd – Invoice

Ex.A2 dated 23.07.2013                   ICICI-Insurance Policy

Ex.A3 dated 14.12.2013                   Complainant’s complaint

Ex.A4 dated 14.12.2013                   F.I.R.

Ex.A5 dated 23.12.2013                   ICICI Insurance company letter

Ex.A6 dated 02.12.2012                   Gove Investment & Finance Co.Letter

Ex.A7 dated 05.09.2014                   Complainant’s letter to Insurance Com

Ex.A8 dated 12.04.2014                   Court’s Order

Ex.A9 dated 22.02.2015                   Lawyers Notice

Ex.A10 dated 15.07.2015                 Lawyer’s Notice

Ex.A11 dated 16.07.2015                 Two Acknowledgement Card

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Policy of Insurance

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                     Terms and Conditions

 

Ex.B3 dated 23.12.2013                   Letter sent by 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.B4 dated 22.01.2014                   Letter sent by 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.B5 dated 13.08.2014                   Letter sent by 1^st opposite party

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT