F.A.  181/2006  against C.D. 548/2002,  Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad.         

Between:

M/s. Anvik Industrial Controls

A registered partnership firm.

No. 302, Karan Centre

Sarojini Devi Road

Secunderabad-500 003.

Rep. by Anil Bammi, Partner                      ***                           Appellant/

                                                                                                  Complainant.

                                                                   And

M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd.

State Sector Branch

3-5-817 & 816, III Floor

Basheerbagh X Road

Hyderabad-500 029.

Rep. by Divisional Branch Manager.                    ***                         Respondent/

                                                                                                Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:                          Smt. Anita Ahuja.

Counsel for the Respondent:                      Mr. V. Krishna Rao

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

    &

                                 SRI K. SATYANAND, MEMBER

THURSDAY,  THIS THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND NINE

ORAL ORDER:  (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

***

1)                 Appellant is  unsuccessful complainant.

2)                The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a vehicle and got it insured with the respondent insurance company for Rs. 4,50,000/- covering the period  from  25.4.20001 to 24. 4. 2002.  While so on  22. 6. 2001  the car was stolen when he kept the car at his residence located at  Karan Centre, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad and on that he gave a report to the police who  registered a case in Crime No. 125/2001 Dt. 22. 6. 2001.    He informed the same to the  insurance company  on    26. 6.2001.  The police referred the matter as   ‘undetected’ and filed final report before the  XXI Metropolitan Magistrate Court   at Hyderabad  on  27.9.2001,   and the case was closed.   He gave R.C. book,  and  keys to  the  respondent on 1. 10. 2001.  

Despite several reminders, the insurance company did not settle the claim  and finally he got issued a legal notice  on 14.3.2002  for which no reply was issued.   Therefore he filed the complaint claiming Rs. 4,97,250/-  with interest @ 21% p.a., together with costs.

3)                 The respondent insurance company filed counter  denying each and every allegation made in the complaint.   While admitting issuance of policy  for Rs. 4,50,000/- covering the period from  25.4.2001 to 24.4.2002  they pleaded ignorance as to  lodging of  case before the police.   It was informed to them on  27.6.2001.   In never repudiated the claim.  After receipt of the claim it appointed a surveyor to investigate the claim who  informed that the final report filed by the police was still pending before the Court  for final approval.   It  has  appointed an independent surveyor  to fix  the market value.  The claim was premature.  In the first week of  October, 2002 it received a letter from  the  Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, Nizamabad   that the insured’s vehicle was traced  and a copy was marked to the complainant to take necessary steps to recover the vehicle.   It in turn also sent a letter informing its readiness to settle the claim  for the damage caused  if any  and requested him to take delivery of the vehicle.   The complainant was declining to take delivery of the vehicle  on the ground that it was  sub-judice.   There was no deficiency in service on its part.   The complainant  with a malafide intention filed this complaint to claim the entire amount covered under the policy.  It prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4)                 The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A38 marked while the respondent insurance company filed  affidavit evidence and got Exs. B1 to B9 marked. 

5)                 The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that  despite the vehicle was traced the complainant did not take any steps to take possession of the vehicle and therefore there was no deficiency in service  on the part of insurance company, and consequently the complaint was dismissed however without costs.

6)                 Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective.    It ought to have seen that the insurance company ought to have settled the claim without referring to belated recovery of the vehicle by the police.  In fact it is for the insurance company to take delivery of the vehicle as he had already handed over the keys along with original R.C. book.    The surveyors’ reports were never furnished to him.   Therefore he  is entitled to the amount  claimed under the policy  and prayed that the complaint be allowed.

7)                 The point that arises for consideration is whether there are any good grounds to interfere with the order of the Dist. Forum?

8)                It is an undisputed fact that the complainant having purchased the vehicle  insured it with the respondent insurance company valid from     25. 4. 2001 to 24. 4. 2002 evidenced under policy Ex. A3.    It is also not in dispute that the vehicle was stolen  and he gave a report  on 22.6.2001 basing on which the police registered a case in Crime No. 125/2001  evidenced under Ex. A9 Dt. 22. 6. 2001.   It was also communicated to the insurance company on  26. 6. 2001.    The complainant has been corresponding  with  the  insurance  company  for  settlement  of  the claim.   Finally   it has issued a legal notice under Ex. A1 Dt. 14. 3. 2002  directing the insurance to settle the claim stating that the  “Punjagutta  CCS gave a final report No. 35/2001 Dt. 27.9.2001 u/s 173  Cr.P.C. to  the  Hon’ble  XXI Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad stating  that the vehicle could not be recovered and  closed the investigation by giving the reason as “UNDETECTED”.   The insurance company by  letter Ex. A2  Dt.  4. 4. 2002  directed  the  complainant   that

  “for want of evidence to the effect that the final closure report  u/s 173  Cr.P.C.  has been forwarded and filed before the respective CJM (Criminal) Court  from police station concerned and for requirement of valuation reports to be issued from  independent  valuers/surveyors  for confirmation of market value of the theft vehicle as on date of loss is yet to receive at our end, the claim is still under process.   On receipt of the  above documents, we shall be in a position to release our payment.”

9)                 Absolutely there is no reason for postponing the claim for the above said reason, in view of the fact that  the same could be verified  from the concerned police station or from the court.   The insurance company did not deny or dispute the said fact.   Since the insurance company except postponing the matter did not settle the claim, the complainant filed this complaint on 31.5.2002. 

10)               After filing of the complaint the insurance company belatedly filed counter  that they received Ex. B1 from  the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Nizamabad rural  informing that the vehicle was traced.   On that the insurance company issued a letter to the complainant asking him to take delivery of return of the vehicle.   We may state that the insurance company under Ex. A13 Dt.  18.9.2001  directed the complainant to forward  R.C. Book  and driving licence besides information whether the vehicle was traced or not.  In case the vehicle was not traced forward the subrogation letter, along with keys etc.    Pursuant to the said letter the complainant under Ex. A14 letter sent subrogation letter besides keys and RC book.    In the circumstances the insurance company itself ought to have taken delivery of return of the vehicle, on the strength of  those documents,  already submitted by  the complainant.    The insurance company from the date of loss of vehicle  viz., 22. 6. 2001 up till  filing of the complaint on 31.5.2002 dragged   on the matter,   and did not settle the claim.   Therefore it cannot take advantage  of  subsequent recovery of the vehicle in order to deprive  the complainant as to his legitimate claim under the policy.   No doubt the insurance company is entitled to make legitimate amount,  as a recourse to disposal of the vehicle.  It does not justify  the insurance company to put the burden  on the complainant  as the complainant’s claim  had come to be more or less finalized by the insurance company itself  the movement it asked for subrogation letter, keys, RC book etc., more so when the police closed the matter  as  ‘undetected’  to  the   knowledge  of   the    insurance   company.   There was nothing that the complainant could do  after submission of those documents as well as the closure of proceedings by the police.   It is for the insurance company to settle the claim  and it is for the insurance company to take  appropriate  action for getting the possession of the vehicle  and appropriate the amount against satisfaction of claim as per law.    Instead of  doing so  that  they opted to repudiate the claim,   in-action that smacks deficiency in service.   We are of the opinion that  in not repudiating or settling the claim till the filing of the complaint,   undoubtedly amounts to deficiency in service which enables the complainant to recover the amount covered under the policy.  

11)               A perusal of the record, discloses that the complainant has taken finance  on the vehicle from  Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd. evidenced from endorsement on RC and also  Ex. A36  filed by him.   We clarify that the complainant  having recovered the amount  from the insurance company is liable to pay the debt  which he was liable to pay towards discharge of the debt he owes to the financier.    We are not inclined to grant any interest or costs  in view of the latches on the part of complainant  in not  clearing the debt to the financier as disclosed from R.C. Book and also letter filed by him Ex. A36 and also in not paying  the insurance premium without any proper outcome from his complaint as also  his  insurance claim.  

12)               In the result the appeal is allowed in part setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum, consequently, the complaint is allowed in part  directing the respondent insurance company to pay Rs. 4,50,000/-  to the complainant.   In the circumstances of the case each party to bear its own costs.   Time for compliance four weeks.

1)       _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER          

                                                           Dt.  13.  08.  2009.