BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 29th day of May 2012
Filed on : 28-09-2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No.516/2011
Between
Nizar K.A., S/o. Abdul Kareem, : Complainant
Kalathil house, (By Adv. Jose P. Joseph,
Kochi-682 035) Nirmal Associates, Ernakulam, Chempu Village ,
Chempu P.O.,
Vaikom Taluk, Kottayam.
And
1.M/s. Cholamandalam MS General : Opposite parties
Insurance Company Ltd., (By Adv. Jacob Mathew,
Kochi Branch, Chittoor road, Mathews Jacob & Associ-
Iyattil Junction, Kochi-11, ates, 61 H.B., Panampilly
Rep. by its Manager. Nagar, Kochi-36)
2. M/s. Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Company Ltd.,
Dare House, 2nd Floor, No.2,
NSC Bose road, Chennai-600 001,
rep. by its Manager.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is the registered owner of a 2003 model motor car bearing registration No. KL 04 M 3131. The complainant insured the vehicle with the 2nd opposite party for the period from 04-04-2009 to 03-04-2010 with insured declared value of Rs. 80,000/-. The vehicle of the complainant was stolen from the premises of the complainant between 10.30 p.m on 04-11-2009 and 6 a.m. on 05-11-2009. The complainant duly informed the Vykom Police and the police registered crime No. 1077/09. After investigation the police submitted a refer report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vykom on 01-03-2010. The complainant submitted a claim application before the opposite parties. The 2nd opposite party rejected the claim application stating that the claim was intimated to the 2nd opposite party belatedly on 01-03-2010 which according to them is a breach of condition of the terms of the policy. The complainant is entitled to get the insurance claim together with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of the proceedings. This compliant hence.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows.
The opposite parties admit the issuance of Insurance policy primarly. Though the car was alleged to be stolen from the complainant’s house between 10.30 p.m. on 04-11-2009 and 6 a.m. on 05-11-2009 the opposite party was informed only on 01-03-2010. This inordinate delay has not been properly explained by the complainant and it is a clear violation of policy conditions 1 and 9. The delay in informing the matter to the opposite parties had detered them from carrying on their own investigation as to the truth of the alleged theft. The rejection of the insurance claim was strictly on the basis of the terms and conditions of the policy. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A10 were marked on the side of the complainant. The witness for the opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 to B6 were marked on their side. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The points that arises for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get insurance claim
from the opposite parties?
ii.Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation
and costs of the proceedings to the complainant.
5. Point No. i. The issues undisputed by the parties.
i. Complainant is the registered owner of the car bearing registration No. KL 04 M 3131 evidenced by Ext. A1 copy of certificate of registration.
ii.The vehicle was insured with the opposite party for the period from 04-04-2009 to 03-04-2010 with sum assured of Rs. 80,000/- evident from Ext. A3 motor policy schedule.
iii.The vehicle was stolen from the premises of the complainant between 10.30 p.m on 04-11-2009 and 6 a.m. on 05-11-2009.
iv. The claim for insurance was repudiated by the opposite party vide Ext. A10 letter dated 22-04-2010.
6. According to the opposite party the complainant failed to intimate the theft of the vehicle immediately after the alleged incident. The counsel for the opposite party vehemently relied on clause No. 1 and 9 of Ext. B1 Insurance policy which reads as follows:
“1. 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 of 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.
9. The due observance and fulfillment of the terms, conditions and endorsements of this Policy in so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the insured and the truth of the statements and answers in the said proposal shall be conditions precedent to any liability of the Company to make any payment under the Policy.”
7. The learned counsel for the opposite party in tune with the above arguments relied on the following decisions rendered by a Hon’ble Naional Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
a. Rajesh Kumar Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (RP NO.
3,900 of 2011)
b. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri. Dharam Singh
(F.A. No. 426/2004)
c. New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane
(F.A. No. 321/2005)
8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hardeep Pal Singh & Anr. (1 (2012) CPJ 377 (NC). By relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble National Commission held as follows:
“In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court that neither the breach of condition nor the use to which the vehicle was being put are relevant considerations for entertaining the claim of the person whose vehicle has been stolen or snatched; therefore, the Insurance Company would be bound to pay the Insured Declared Value of the Vehicle and not 75% on non-standard basis taking the ground of use of vehicle for a purpose other than the purpose for which it was registered as a breach of condition of the policy, the Fora below have rightly directed the Petitioner to pay the Insured declared Value of the vehicle.
9. In view of the above Higher Authority we are only to hold that the complainant is entitled to get of the insured declared value from the opposite parties. We are relying on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we can not consider the decisions submitted by the opposite parties which would go against the rule of law.
10. Point No. ii. Admittedly the opposite parties went to go by the terms and conditions in Ext. B1 policy and bonafide rejected the insurance claim of the complainant. So we are not to consider the relief of compensation and costs of the proceedings.
11. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite party shall pay to the complainant the insured declared value of the vehicle with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization. The parties if aggrieved is free to approach the appropriate Authority if so advised.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29th day of May 2012.
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits:
Ext. A1 : Copy of certificate of registration
A2 : Copy of tax licence
A3 : Copy of schedule-motor policy
A4 : Copy of Premium Computation Table
A5 : Copy of certificate of insurance
A6 : Copy of FIR
A7 : Mahazar
A8 : Final report
A9 : Letter dt. 12-03-2010
A10 : Letter dt. 22-04-2010
Opposite party’s exhibits:
Ext. B1 : Copy of motor policy schedule cum certificate
of Insurance
B2 : Copy of letter dt. 12-03-2010
B3 : Copy of letter dt. 22-04-2010
B4 : Copy of letter dt. 01-03-2010
B5 : A.D. card
B6 : Copy of CRM Motor Claim Intimation
form (theft)
Depositions:
PW1 : Nizar
DW1 : Manjusha V
