COMPLAINT FILED: 26.12.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 19th FEBRUARY 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 2812/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT TG Ramesh,<br /> S/o. Gurappa,<br /> No. B-21,<br /> PO Bommasandra,<br /> Hebbagodi,<br /> Anekal Taluk,<br /> Bangalore – 560 099.<br /> <br /> Advocate (S. Venkatesh Aithal)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. M/s. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,<br /> No. 41, 2nd Floor,<br /> Cristi Complex,<br /> Lavelle Road,<br /> Rep. by its Branch Manager.<br /> <br /> Also at:<br /> <br /> 2. M/s. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,<br /> Bangalore Retail,<br /> No. 28, 1st Floor, City Centre,<br /> Church Street,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> Rep. by its Branch Manager.<br /> <br /> Advocate (S. Krishna Kishore)<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to settle the insurance claim and pay a compensation and damages of Rs.60,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant is the R.C. Owner of the vehicle bearing No. KA-05-EX-6784. OP covered the insurance of the said vehicle for the year 2006 to 2007, wherein declared value of the vehicle is noted as Rs.20,000/-. The said policy was inforce from 29.08.2006 to 28.08.2007. On 20.05.2007 complainant parked his motorcycle in Attibele, in Anekal Taluk at about 3 p.m. After attending to his private work when he returned back to the spot, to his utter shock and surprise he noticed that some culprit has committed theft of his motorcycle. Immediately he lodged the complaint to the Attibele Police Station on 21.05.2007. Police have registered the case at Crime No. 139/07. They are unable to trace the vehicle, ultimately submitted ‘C’ final report. Complainant submitted claim petition to OP. He made his repeated requests and demands OP kept pending the said claim for more than 20 months. The hostile attitude of the OP has caused him both mental agony and financial loss. Though he produced all the relevant documents for the consideration of the OP, the claim is not settled. Thus he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant has not produced Non Traceable Certificate from the concerned Police so as to finalize the said claim. Though OP gave sufficient and reasonable time to the complainant to produce NTC, but it went in vain. OP has processed the said claim, surveyed it and kept ready, but for want of NTC they are unable to honour the said claim. No fault lies with the OP. There is no deficiency in service. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant is the R.C. Owner of the vehicle bearing No. KA-05-EX-6784. OP covered the insurance of the said vehicle which was inforce from 29.08.2006 to 28.08.2007. The insured declared value noted is Rs.20,000/-. According to the complainant on 20.05.2007 at about 3 p.m. or so when he parked his vehicle at Attibele, Anekal Taluk some culprit committed theft of the same. He lodged complaint to the Anekal Police on 21.05.2007. A case is registered. The FIR copy is produced. Thereafter it appears complainant made a claim to the OP by producing all the relevant documents connected with the said vehicle. In spite of his repeated requests and reminders OP failed to settle the said claim for more than 19 months. Hence he felt the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 7. The evidence of the complainant, which finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents, appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP that complainant is required to produce Non Traceable Certificate from the Police concerned who registered the case and complainant failed to produce the same, hence they treated the claim as no claim appears to be unjust and improper. <br /> 8. On going through the documents produced by the complainant, he has produced an endorsement issued by the Police in Form No. 159, wherein his complaint is treated as not detectable ‘C’ report is submitted. Then what more the proof OP wants is not known. Even if complainant has not produced the said certificate, nothing prevented OP to approach the concerned Police and get the information about the progress in the investigation. People go for insurance with a good faith that in case of sustaining any loss or damages in either way it will be promptly compensated and their interest will be protected. But if OP raises the technical objections, then the consumer like complainant may loose the faith in the whole insurance system.<br /> <br /> 9. We do not find force in the defence set out by the OP. OP wants to wash of its hands by stating that they have processed the claim, surveyed, kept it ready, but for want of NTC they are unable to honour it. It is unfortunate. If OP had a real concern about the settlement of the said claim, definitely they would have taken some necessary steps in contacting the concerned Police or atleast rely on all the documents produced by the complainant including that of the Form No. 159. No such steps are taken. Here we find the deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 10. Due to the carelessness and negligence of the OP complainant must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss, that too for no fault of his. Under such circumstances he deserves certain relief. Having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the justice will be met by directing the OP to settle the claim for the IDV and pay litigation cost. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to settle the claim for Rs.20,000/- and pay the same to the complainant along with a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. Failing in which the complainant is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on Rs.20,000/- from the date of causing legal notice (03.11.2008) till realization along with a litigation cost.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 19th day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />