Date of Filing : 16.06.2011
Date of Order : 25.02.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 25th FEBRUARY 2012
PRESENT
Sri. T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH …….. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA …….. MEMBER
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 153 / 2011
Sri. C.E. Anand,
S/o. Eranna, Major,
R/o. Chinnapura Village, Kasaba Hobli,
Kolar Taluk.
(By Sri. Ganesh.N. & Sri. R.N. Reddeppa, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No. 41, 2nd Floor, Cristu Complex,
Mandovi Motors, Lavelle Road,
Bangalore – 560 001.
(By Sri. B. Kumar, Adv.) …… Opposite Party
ORDER
By Smt. K.G. SHANTALA, MEMBER
This Complaint is filed by the Complainant u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking Order for payment of compensation amount of Rs.35,000/- i.e., the insured declared value of his two wheeler vehicle along with interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of Complaint.
2. As per the complaint averments, the Complainant owned two wheeler vehicle viz., Bajaj Discover-1110C bearing Reg. No. KA-07/C-8037. The said vehicle was insured with the OP Company vide Policy No. 71328478 valid from 12.12.2009 to 11.12.2010. On 24.01.2010 at about 5.00 PM, the said vehicle was lost due to theft at Shantamma Ramegowda Kalyana Mantapa Compound, M.B. Road, Kolar. In spite of serious efforts, the vehicle was not traced. Thereafter the Complainant informed the OP Company orally. But, the OP Company did not take any steps to pay compensation amount. The Complainant lodged Complaint at Gulpet Police Station, Kolar on 22.03.2010 which was registered vide Cr. No. 19/2010 and the ‘C’ Report was submitted on 27.12.2010. Although the Policy was in force at the time of incident and all necessary documents were furnished, the OP without sufficient reasons delayed payment of compensation amount. Thereafter, the Complainant got issued legal notice on 08.03.2011 which was served on OP on 09.03.2011, but OP has not given reply. Therefore, the Complainant has filed this Complaint seeking justice.
3. On being served with notice, OP appeared through Counsel and filed version, 2 documents & affidavit contending that for the first time the Complainant had intimated about the theft of the vehicle by issuing notice on 08.03.2011 though the theft of vehicle had occurred on 24.01.2010 and FIR was lodged on 22.03.2010 at about 8.13 PM. As per the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, the word “immediately” means “at once”. As per Black’s Law Dictionary, the word immediately means “immediately without interval of time, without delay, straightaway or without any delay or lapse of time. When used in contract is construed to mean without a reason able time although strictly it means – not deferred by any period of time. In the instant case, the Complainant by not informing about the theft immediately to OP has deprived the insurer of a valuable right to investigate as to the commission of theft and to trace / help in tracing the vehicle. The OP has further contended that there is no deficiency of service and therefore is entitled to get compensatory costs of Rs.20,000/- for the harassment caused by the Complainant and sought for dismissal of the Complaint.
4. From the Complaint and version averments, affidavits and the documents filed by both parties, the points that arise for consideration are:
(1) Whether there is deficiency of service o the part of OP ?
(2) If so, to what relief/s the complainant is entitled ?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:
(1) Point No. 1 - Negative
(2) Point No. 2 – As per final order.
REASONS
6. OP has admitted that Policy was in force at the time of incident. The Complainant has filed 10 documents. The documents produced by the Complainant i.e., Certified Copy of FIR, Complaint, Charge Sheet and Complainant’s own admission prove that theft of vehicle occurred on 24.01.2010 and FIR was lodged on 22.03.2010 i.e., nearly 2 months after the incident. The Complainant has avered that he informed about the occurrence of theft to OP, but has not produced any documents to prove that fact. Legal notice dated 08.03.2011 is almost one year after the said incident. There is violation of condition No. 1 of the Policy i.e., “Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this Policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the Police and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender”. OP to substantiate its case has relied on judgement of Hon’ble National Commission i.e., First Appeal No. 426/2004 between The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Shri Dharam Singh, First Appeal No. 321/2005 between New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Trilochan Jane and R.P. No. 1362/2011 between Bang Lal (deceased) through his Legal representatives Smt. Gyarsi Devi & others & the Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. OP has also relied on judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No. 169/2011 between Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s. Babu Reddy. In the said judgement of Hon’ble National Commission, it is held as follows:
In Davendra Singh’s case (Supra) delay of four days in reporting theft of the insured vehicle to the police and delay in reporting to the insurer of the theft after a gap of almost of a month was held in violation of condition of policy. In M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal’s case (Supra) the Supreme Court held that the terms of contract have to be read strictly. Applying the ratio of this decision in present case there is clear breach of afore-mentioned condition No. 1 of the policy on the part of respondent and appellant cannot be said to be deficient in service in not paying the claim under the policy”
The ratio of the above decision directly applies to the facts of the present case. There is flagrant violation of terms & conditions. Such being the case, it cannot be held that there is deficiency on the part of the OP for not paying the Policy claim of Rs.35,000/- to the Complainant. Hence, this Point is held against Complainant.
7. Point No. 2 – In view of the negative finding on Point No. 1, consideration of Point No. 2 does not arise. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 25th day of February 2012.
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA T.RAJASHEKHARAIAH
Member Member President
SSS
