CC Filed on 24.05.2008<br /> Disposed on 16.10.2008<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 16th day of October 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No.47/2008<br /> <br /> Jamiulla Khan,<br /> S/o Habeebulla Khan,<br /> Aged about 45 years,<br /> R/at Lakkasandra,<br /> Bangalore-30. Complainant <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. A.V.Ananda & Others) <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance,<br /> S.V.R. Complex,<br /> 2nd Floor,<br /> No.89, Hosur Road,<br /> Bangalore – 68. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. B.Kumar & Others) <br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> This is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.98,409/- towards the insurance amount and compensation to complainant with interest at 18% per annum from the date of claim till the date of payment with costs etc.,<br /> <br /> 2. The material facts of the case may be stated as follows: That the complainant is the owner and RC holder of the lorry bearing registration <br /> <br /> CC No.47/2008<br /> No.UP-78 BN-1299, having purchased it in the month of December 2007 from its previous owner. This lorry is heavy goods vehicle manufactured in the year 2006. The RC was changed in the name of complainant with effect from 20.12.2007. He obtained Goods Carrying Package Policy bearing No.3003/53173068/00/000 in respect of this vehicle for Rs.10,00,000/- for the period from 19.12.2007 to 18.12.2008 by paying total premium of Rs.30,511/-. <br /> <br /> After purchase of the lorry the complainant left it with M/s National Body Builders Sangandahalli Kasaba Hobli Kolar Taluk on 21.01.2008, in order to change the body of the said lorry. When the lorry was parked in that workshop, the complainant was informed on 24.01.2008 regarding the theft of an important and valuable part of the lorry namely Mico 432 Fuel Injection Pump and FIP Pipe. Immediately complaint was given to jurisdictional police on 25.01.2008 and the opposite party was also notified regarding the theft of the said part. It is alleged that the opposite party visited the spot and told the complainant to replace the missing part at his expense and that the cost of replacement would be reimbursed. Accordingly the complainant purchased the said part for Rs.73,409-75 from M/s Dada Auto Diesel Works Kolar on 18.02.2008 and got it fixed to the lorry. It is alleged that when a claim is made for imbursement of the price of the said part, the opposite party by letter dated 25.02.2008 repudiated the claim on the ground that it is not admissible since the partial theft is not covered under the policy. Thereafter the complainant filed the present complaint. <br /> <br /> The opposite party appeared and contended that the said stolen parts are nothing but accessories of the vehicle and the loss of or damage to accessories by burglary, house breaking or theft is excluded under the <br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.47/2008<br /> policy unless such insured vehicle is stolen at the same time. During argument further it is stated that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The issue of policy is not disputed by the opposite party. <br /> <br /> 3. The parties filed affidavits and documents. We heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for opposite party filed written argument on the next day of the conclusion of oral argument. <br /> <br /> 4. The following points arise for our consideration: <br /> <br /> 1. Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the<br /> complaint?<br /> 2. Whether the loss due to theft of Mico 432 Fuel Injection Pump<br /> and FIP Pipe of the lorry in question is covered under the<br /> policy? If so to which compensation the complainant is entitled<br /> to? <br /> 3. What order?<br /> <br /> 5. After considering the records and submission of parties our findings are as follows:<br /> <br /> Point No.1 The theft has taken place when the lorry was parked in the premises of M/s National Body Builders Sangandahalli Kasaba Hobli Kolar Taluk, within the local jurisdiction of this Forum. The cause of action for filing the complaint has arisen because of the said theft. Hence we hold point No.1 in affirmative. <br /> <br /> Point No.2: It is not disputed that Mico 432 Fuel Injection Pump and FIP Pipe are material parts in a lorry and without such parts the lorry cannot be run. The learned counsel for complainant contended that accessories are those parts which are not essential to run the lorry and they are only additional or subsidiary parts present along with something <br /> <br /> CC No.47/2008<br /> more important parts of the vehicle. We think the said contention of the learned counsel is to be accepted. Therefore one can say that these parts are not merely the accessories of the lorry. The exclusion clause provides that the insurance company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of loss or damage to accessories by burglary, house breaking or theft unless such insured vehicle is stolen at the same time. As noticed above the stolen parts are not accessories of the vehicle. Hence in respect of theft of material parts of the vehicle this exclusion clause cannot be applied. It applies only in the case of accessories of the vehicle. <br /> <br /> In the letter dated 25.02.2008 the opposite party has repudiated the claim on the ground that partial theft is not covered under the policy. The policy provides that the insurance company will indemnify the insured against loss or damage to the vehicle insured hereunder and / or its accessories by burglary, house breaking or theft, apart from covering some other risks. The exclusion clause states that in the case of loss of accessories by burglary, house breaking or theft the insurance company is not liable unless such insured vehicle is stolen at the same time. This exclusion clause clearly implies that partial theft of the vehicle is clearly covered under the policy. Therefore it is not possible to contend that in case of partial theft of the vehicle, the insurance company is not liable to make good the loss. For these reasons we hold that the insurance company is liable to indemnify the loss caused due to partial theft of the vehicle. <br /> <br /> The complainant has produced tax invoice dated 18.02.2008 issued by Dada Auto Diesel Works which is Sundaram Motors authorized sales and spares center for Ashok Leyland, Iveco Carago, Ceat Tyres, for having purchased the spare parts (Fuel Injection Pump <br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.47/2008<br /> and FIP Pipe) for Rs.73,409-75. The vehicle in question was aged more than one year but not exceeding two years. As per policy term depreciation of 10% is to be deducted. Therefore the loss to be indemnified by opposite party may be estimated at Rs.66,500/- including the labour charge. Point No.2 is held accordingly. This amount should have been paid by opposite party instead of repudiating the claim by letter dated 25.02.2008. <br /> <br /> Point No.3: For the above reasons we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The opposite party shall pay Rs.66,500/- (Sixty six Thousand Five Hundred only) to complainant with interest at 9% per annum from 25.02.2008 till the date of realization within 45 days from the date of this order. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 16th day of October 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />