DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 18^th day of October, 2023

  Present :  Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

              :  Sri Krishnankutty N K, Member

Date of filing:  18/11/2020                          

     CC/147/2020

Sheeja K H,

W/o Jameesh

Diya Manzil, FCI Colony

Industrial Estate                        -  Complainant

Puthupariyaram

Palakkad 678 731

(By Adv K Dhananjayan)                                            V/s

• M/s Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd,

       Magma House

24 Park Street, Kolkatta - 700 016.

• M/s Magma HDI, General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

    Magma House, 24 Park Street, Kolkatta - 700 016     -     Opposite party

Rep. By Managing Director,

Manager/Authorised Signatory

• The Manager

    M/s Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Policy Serving Office, 1^st Floor,

Jain Tower, Power House, NH Bye Pass,

Vyttila, Eranakulam 682 019

(By Adv. P Prasad  for Opposite party 1-3)

• The Manager

A M Wings Two Wheeler Pvt. Ltd., 26/700,

Surya Platinum Nurani

Palakakd 678 004.

(Ex-parte)

 O R D E R   

By Sri Krishnankutty N K, Memebr

•    Pleadings of the complainant in brief.

The Honda Activa Scooter owned by the complainant bearing Reg. No KL/09/AR/3565 was found missing on 14.08.2019 from the parking slot in front of the shop in Olavakkode owned by her husband. A complaint was lodged before the Hemambika Police Station on 02/09/2019 at 19.16 hours. She intimated the opposite parties 1-3 and the RTO Palakkad immediately. Since the police could not locate the vehicle, a claim was lodged with the opposite parties 1-3. Accordingly  a claim was registered by the opposite parties and advised the complainant to hand over the necessary documents viz, copy of FIR, original Insurance Policy, copy of RC, duplicate set of keys etc to One Mr. Debin, staff of opposite party 4. The opposite party-3 company did not settle the claim. Aggrieved by this the complainant has approached this Commission seeking compensation of Rs 72000/- towards the cost of the stolen vehicle Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and 15000/- towards the cost of litigation.

• Notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties 1-3 entered appearance and filed their version. Their main contention is that the complainant filed FIR only on 02/09/2019 for the theft said to have happened on 14/08/2019 is 19 days after the incident. Further she has not intimated the Company immediately after the incident as per the terms of the policy. In spite of  their notices on 02/09/2019, 06/01/2020, 17/01/2020 & 27/01/2020 the complainant did not file the claim application along with necessary documents/records which are required to settle the claim. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part. OP4 did not enter appearance  and hence was set ex-parte.
• Issues involved in this Case are

• Whether there is any violation of policy condition by the   complainant as alleged by the opposite parties?
• Whether the complainant failed to produce the necessary documents for processing the claim before OP?
• Whether there is any deficiency  in service  on the part of opposite parties?
• Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
• Reliefs as to cost and compensation.

• The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext A1 to A7 as evidence. Ext A6 was objected to on the reason that it is not accompanied by Section 65B Certificate. However there was no allegation that it is a forged/concocted one. Hence the objection was overruled as this section of Evidence Act is not strictly applicable for Cases under CP Act, 2019. The opposite party 1-3 filed proof affidavit and marked Ext B1-B3 as evidence on their part. The following are the documents marked as evidence.

Ext A1  :  Copy of FIR dated 02/09/2019 bearing Crime No 0313/2019.

Ext A2 :  Copy of FIS by P N Rajendran, SI of Police, Hemabika Nagar,       Palakkad

Ext A3  :   Letter dated 09/10/2019 sent by the complainant to RTO,

Palakkad  regarding non-use of vehicle.

Ext A4  :   Tax invoice issued by OP4 towards the purchase of vehicle

dated  22/03/2019.

Ext A5  :   Copy of Insurance Policy No P 00193000274113/115355.

Ext A6  :   Copy of E-mail sent to OPs dated 11/06/2020

Ext A7  :   Copy of letter sent by opposite parties to the complainant

informing that the file is closed at their end.

Ext B1  :   The copy of Insurance Policy along with terms & condition.

Ext B2  :   Copies of letter sent to the complainant on 07/09/19,

06/01/20, 17/01/20 & 27/01/20.

Ext B3  :   Receipt of the above letter sent through DTDC courier

• The Case was referred for settlement as 27/04/2023. During the sitting,   the counsel for opposite parties 1-3 informed that they are ready to entertain the claim provided the relevant documents are submitted by the complainant.

Issue 1    

• The incident happened on 14.08.2019, but FIR was ledged after19 days ie. on 02/09/2019 and  intimated the opposite parties after that. Hence there is violation of the term of the policy regarding the notification. However the letter dated 07/09/2019 and the reminders sent by the opposite parties clearly show their intention to consider the claim provided the complaint submit the necessary documents  sought          by them

Issue 2

• In the  pleadings, the complainant has mentioned that the documents sought by the OP1-3  company was handed over to the staff of OP4 and not directly to OP1-3. Further it is seen that the complainant did not co-ordinate with the officials of OP4 to ensure that the documents are submitted to OP1-3. Further no effort was made to cross examine  the officials of OP4 to find out whether the documents were handed over to the OP 1-3. Hence this issue will be held against the complainant as none of the documents marked support her claim of submitting necessary documents to the opposite parties (1-3).

Issue 3-5

• From the above, it is clear that the complainant failed to prove that she has submitted the necessary documents to OP1-3 which is the primary requirement for considering a claim. As a prima facie case is not proved                    against the OPs the complaint liable for dismissal.
• In the result, the complainant is dismissed. So the complaint is not

Entered to any relief.

  Pronounced in open court on this the 18^th October  2023.

          Sd/-

                       Vinay Menon V

                                        President

         Sd/-

        Krishnankutty N K

      Member.