F.A.No.491/2009 against  C.C.No.1066/2007, DISTRICT FORUM-I,Hyderabad.

Between

M/s.Chabbra Associates,

Rep. by its Managing Partner,

Ramesh Chabbra, S/o.Satish Chabra,

Occ:Business, R/o.11-1-776/14,

Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.                                                                  …Appellant/

                                                                                                        Complainant

             And

M/s. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY LTD., Osman Plaza, 6-3-352/1,

IIIrd & IV th Floors,  Road No.1

Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad – 34.                                                                                  … Respondent/

                                                                                                           Opp.party          

Counsel for the Appellant     :   Mr.P.Ramachander

Counsel for the respondent   :  M/s.Katta Laxmi Prasad 

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA,  HON’BLE MEMBER

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN.

(Typed to dictation of   Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
                                                ****

            Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.1066/2007  on the file of District Forum-1,Hyderabad , the complainant preferred this appeal.

        The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the  complainant obtained comprehensive  insurance policy No.3001/50017918/00/000 Hyd/Mtrclm/1381/2006  from opposite party  with respect to  vehicle Mercedes Benz car  bearing  registration No.AP12 D 3000.    On 26.12.2006   the car deck was stolen from the car  at complainant’s residence during the night hours  and  during the said time the policy was in existence.   The complainant immediately gave a complaint about the theft  to the police, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad on 27.12.2006   and the  police  investigated the matter and issued a letter  dt.10.1.2007  stating that the said system was not traceable.   The opposite party deputed their surveyor G.Ram Murthy  and another employee Seetaram Raju for investigation.   The complainant informed them about the theft of the music system and handed over a letter dt.12.1.2007.   They have taken the said letter and  came back to the complainant after 2 or 3 days  and advised  the complainant    to write the letter as per their dictation otherwise he will not get the claim amount. The complainant with no other alternative submitted an application as per the dictation of opposite party’s investigator and another employee in the form of manuscript.  The complainant received rejection letter dt.22.1.2007  and realized that the opposite party’s employees with sole intention   to deprive the complainant to claim the cost of the Music System  got dictated the  letter in the form of manuscript  as per their requirement to reject the claim. The complainant got issued legal notice dt.30.3.2007 to the opposite party to settle the claim  within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said notice and also pay damages to the tune of 50,000/- for causing mental agony  and the opposite party received the  said letter  but did not comply the demands of the complainant.   Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to  settle the claim of the complainant with respect to the Radio Music System (worth Rs.58,000/-)  which is subject matter of the insurance policy  3001/50017918/00/000  Hyd/Mtrclm/1381/2006, to award damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/-    and legal expenses of Rs.10,000/-   . 

        Opposite party filed counter   stating   that the motor policy   issued by their company to the complainant is subject to certain terms and conditions and as per the terms and conditions of the policy the theft of the tape deck accessories is not covered under the policy.  The opposite party submits that the claim of the complainant in respect to  theft of his tape deck could not be processed  and his claim is repudiated on the ground that there is no insurance coverage for  car accessories  The opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

        The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A7 and pleadings put forward dismissed the complaint. 

        Aggrieved by the said order,  the complainant preferred this appeal.

        Appellant filed written arguments.  Exs.A8 and A9 and B1 are filed before this Commission as additional evidence

            It is the complainant’s case that he obtained comprehensive insurance policy from the opposite party for his vehicle Mercedes Benz car paying a premium of Rs.35,676, the insured declared value being Rs.9,00,000/- and the date of issue being 31-5-2006.   While so, on 26-12-2006, the car deck (Music system) was stolen from the car and the complainant immediately lodged a police complaint on 27-12-2006.  The police investigated the matter and issued a letter dated 10-1-2007 stating that the system was ‘not traceable’.  The opposite party deputed their surveyor who informed the complainant that the letter has to be written in the form of a manuscript which was done as per the dictation of opposite party investigator.  The complainant  submits that his claim was rejected vide letter dated 22-1-2007 which is evidenced under Ex.A2 on the ground that the vehicle was left unattended and that Tape deck assembly is not covered as per their terms and conditions. 

        The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant also drew our attention to Ex.A6 which is the estimation given for the said car and the radio set assembly was valued at Rs.57,023/-.  Inspite of repeated requests, no action was taken by the opposite party and the appellant/complainant got issued Ex.A1 legal notice on 30-3-2007 to pay the cost of the music system i.e. Rs.58,000/- together with damages.    

        The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the repudiation is justified as the policy does not cover car deck assembly.  The complainant filed Exs.A8 and A9 by way of additional evidence which is the copy of the insurance policy and its terms and conditions.  It is pertinent to note that the insurance policy is a comprehensive policy taken for Mercedes Benz car paying a premium of Rs.35,676/- (Ex.A8) and this cover note and the terms and conditions no where explicitly exclude the car deck assembly.  IMT 33 with respect to loss of accessories is also stated to be applicable to motorized two wheeler policies only.  When there is no explicit exclusion in the terms and conditions of the policy with respect to car deck assembly, we are of the considered view that the repudiation by the respondent/opposite party is unjustified.  Therefore, we allow the appeal and  set aside the order of the District Forum by directing the opposite party to pay Rs.57,023/- less 10% depreciation as the tape deck has been used for some time together with compensation of Rs.3,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-.

        In the result this appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum  is set aside directing the opposite party to pay Rs.57,023/- less 10% depreciation as the tape deck has been used for some time together with compensation of Rs.3,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/- to be complied within four weeks from the date of receipt of order.

                                                                                                                        Sd/-PRESIDENT.

                                                                                                                        Sd/-MEMBER.

JM                                                                                                                     Dt.26-09-2011