Between:

S.Sreenu, S/o Ramudu,

H.No.7/458/8/5, Tarakarama Nagar, Dhone – 518 222.                                

          …Complainant

-Vs-

M/s United India Insurance Company Limited, The Senior Divisional Manager,

H.No.44-36B, Mourya Inn Complex, Bhagya Nagar, Kurnool – 518 004.                     

                        ...Opposite ParTy

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate for complainant and Sri.K.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

(As per Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, Male Member, PRESIDENT (FAC))

C.C. No. 54/2012

1.     This complaint is filed by the complainant under section 11 and 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying a direction on opposite party for the payment of:-

(a)        Assured amount of Rs.21,050/- with 24% per annum interest from the date of theft;

(b)        Rs.25,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony;

(c)         Cost of the complaint.

2.     Briefly the complainant’s case is that his TVS XL Super Heavy Duly Motor Cycle purchased in the year 2008 for Rs.22,000/- bearing No.AP 21 Q 4728 was insured with opposite party under policy bearing No.051181/31/08/01/00000081 for Rs.21,050/- covering the risk for the period from 14-05-2008 to 13-05-2009.  The vehicle was stolen on 02-03-2009 near Vegetable Market at Dhone.  He searched there but could not find it out. He informed opposite party and finally lodged a complaint in Dhone P.S.  The police register the case in F.I.R. No.130/2009 under section 379 of I.P.C.  He filed a claim before opposite party who repudiated it on 02-11-2012 for the reason that insured did not possess valid driving license at the time of theft.  Pained by the letter from opposite party, this complaint is filed before this Forum claiming appropriate reliefs. 

3.     The complainant filed sworn affidavit and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A3.

4.     In reply opposite party filed written version denying his liability to the complainant’s claim.  According to opposite party, the driver of the vehicle as per terms and conditions of policy should possess a valid driving license to claim any compensation during the insurance period which he did not possess.  Further the complainant did not inform opposite party about the alleged theft in time.  More over if any liability arises on opposite party it is restricted to Rs.10,000/- only, because he himself admitted the value of vehicles as Rs.10,000/- in the F.I.R. of P.S. Dhone.  Keeping in view of the above averments, opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the case as there is no deficiency on his part.

5.     Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 are marked along with sworn affidavit filed by opposite party.

6.     Both parties filed their written arguments.

7.     Hence the points for consideration are:-

(i)         Whether there is deficiency on the part of opposite party?

(ii)                 Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?

(iii)                To what relief?

8.      POINTS i and ii:- Ex.A1/Ex.B2 is insurance policy.  The complainant insured his vehicle bearing No.AP 21 Q 4728 with opposite party covering the risk from 14-05-2008 to 13-05-2009.  The vehicle IDV was Rs.21,050/-.  The premium paid was Rs.654/-.  One of the conditions of the policy is the person driving should hold an effective driving license at the time of accident.  Ex.A2 is F.I.R. issued by P.S. Dhone, registering theft case in C.C.No.130/2009 under section I.P.C. 379 dated 03-04-2009 on the written complaint from S.Sreenu, owner of the vehicle.  Ex.B1/Ex.A3 is repudiation letter from opposite party.  The claim was repudiated for the reason that the insured was not having valid driving license at the time of theft dated 02-03-2009.

        The contention of opposite party is that at the time of theft the driver was not holding valid driving license, which is a violation of policy condition.  The complainant argued that there is no breach of terms and conditions because, in theft cases the terms and conditions are not germane.  He relief on a decision reported in IV (2008) C.P.J. 1 (SC) if Supreme Court of India.  The case relates to the theft of the car.  It is not a case of third party risk.  The vehicle has not been recovered.   It is not disputed that the vehicle was comprehensively insured.  In the case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane.  The insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for the loss caused to the insurer.   The insurance company ought to have settled the claim on non standard basis.  The insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft.  The instant case is alike to the case in the aforesaid judgment.

        The opposite party also alleged that the complainant delayed in informing the insurance company or lodging the report with the police about the theft of his vehicle.  In this regard the complainant filed an order of AP State Commission, Hyderabad F.A.No.1073/2011 against C.C.No.4/2011 District Consumer Forum, Kurnool and a Cricular Ref:IRDA/HLTH/MISC/CIR/216/09/2011 dated 20-09-2011 issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority.  The essence of the citations is that the condition of delayed submission of intimation and document should not prevent settlement of genuine claims and insurers are advised to condone delay on merit.  Ex.A2 which was not disputed by opposite party discloses the reality of theft and thus the gernuiness of the claim.  It is clear from the above opinion that the act of insurance company in closing the present genuine claim as “the claim repudiated” is unfair. 

9.      POINT No.iii:- The complainant claimed the vehicle IDV of Rs.21,050/-.  But in the complaint given to police, the complainant declared the value of the vehicle as Rs.10,000/- above.  In view of facts and circumstance of the case 75% of I.D.V. is allowed.  The compensation of Rs.2,000/- is granted for causing mental agony by opposite party in not settling claim  at his level.   

10.    In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to pay 75% of vehicle IDV along with Rs.2,000/- as compensation for causing  mental agony.  The cost of the case is Rs.500/-.  Time for compliance is four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.  After wards the complainant is entitled for 9% per annum interest on the awared amount till the date of realization.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 20^th day of May, 2013.

Sd/-                                                                                      Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT (FAC)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nil                    For the opposite party : Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1        Photo copy of Policy bearing No.051181/31/08/01/00000081 issued by United India Insurance Company Limited.

Ex.A2        Photo copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.130/2009 Dated 03-04-2009 issued by Dhone P.S. Kurnool District.

Ex.A3                Repudiation Letter dated 02-11-2011.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:-

Ex.B1                Photo copy of Repudiation Letter dated 02-11-2011.

Ex.B2        Photo copy of Policy bearing No.051181/31/08/01/00000081 issued by United India Insurance Company Limited.

Sd/-                                                                                      Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT (FAC)

// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties  :

Copy was made ready on             :

Copy was dispatched on               :