Date of Filing : 06.07.2011
Date of Order : 28.01.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 28th day of JANUARY 2012
PRESENT
Sri. T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH …….. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA …….. MEMBER
Consumer Complaint No. 160 / 2011
Sri. M. Shankarappa, Major,
Janatha Traders, K.S.R.T.C. Bus Stand,
Mulbagal Taluk,
Kolar District.
(By Sri. A. Lakshminarayana, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office, No. 1092/2, New Extension,
Near Doom Light Circle,
Kolar.
(By Sri. B. Kumar, Adv.) …… Opposite Party
ORDER
By Smt. K.G. SHANTALA, MEMBER
This Complaint is filed by the Complainant u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against OP to pay a sum of Rs.48,000/- together with interest @ 24% P.A. from the date of theft till the date of realization and compensation.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Complainant is the owner of Bajaj Discover bearing Regn. No. KA-07-R-2933. The said vehicle was insured with the OP vide Policy No. 604102/31/09/6200005915 for the period from 24.03.2010 to 23.03.2011 covering the risk of theft also. The said vehicle was stolen on 22.06.2010 when it was parked near Kolar KSRTC Bus Stand. Complainant has intimated the same to the OP immediately after the theft. OP directed the Complainant to lodge police complaint and submit the necessary documents. The Complainant has requested the OP to settle the claim. In spite of repeated requests, OP has not settled the claim and finally on 10.06.2011 OP has repudiated the claim. Complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of OP and hence he filed Complaint against OP for necessary relief.
3. On service of notice, OP appeared and filed version taking statutory and general defences. OP’s main contention is that first information about the theft of the vehicle was received by the OP on 31.05.2011 i.e., after 11 months & 7 days after the alleged incident. As per Policy conditions, in case of loss / damage to the vehicle, the intimation for such occurrence must be given to the Insurance Company in writing immediately. OP has further contended that the date and time of theft as mentioned in the theft intimation letter and insurance claim form is 24.06.2010 between 4.30 PM & 5.30 PM wherein in the Complaint the date of theft is mentioned as 22.06.2010. The I.D. value of the vehicle is Rs.38,985/- and not Rs.48,000/- as mentioned in the FIR. OP has further contended that Complainant failed to inform the mishap immediately after the incident as per the terms & conditions of the Policy. The delay would deprive the Insurance Company to investigate and help in tracing the vehicle. OP has denied any deficiency in service on its part as alleged by the Complainant.
4. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the documents filed by both the parties and written arguments with citations, the points that arise for consideration are as under:
(1) Whether the Complainant proves that there is deficiency of service on the part of OP?
(2) If so, to what relief/s the Complainant is entitled to?
(3) What order ?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:
1. Negative
2. Negative
3. As per final order
REASONS
6. Point Nos. 1 & 2 – It is evident that the Complainant has insured his vehicle with the OP and the Policy was in force at the time of incident of theft. On perusal of clause 3 & 4 of the terms & conditions of the Policy, Complainant should have intimated about the incidence to the Insurance Company in writing immediately on its occurrence. There is an inordinate delay of 11 months & 7 days in intimating the Insurance Company about the incidence. Even the Complainant has not mentioned in the Complaint the exact date when he has intimated about the theft of the vehicle and submitted the claim form to the OP. Hence, the contention of the OP with regard to delay has to be accepted. OP has elaborated on Dictionary meaning of the word “immediately” as under
Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary – At once.
Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary – Although in strictness it excludes all mean times, yet to make good the deeds and intents of parties it shall be construed such convenient time as is reasonably requisite for doing the thing.
Black’s Law Dictionary – immediately without interval of time, without delay, straightaway, or without any delay or lapse of time. When used in contract is usually construed to mean within a reasonable time having due regard to the nature of circumstances of the case, although strictly, it means, “not deferred by any period of time. The words immediately & forthwith have generally the same meaning.
7. OP has also relied on judgement of Hon’ble National Commission in First Appeal No. 426/2004 between New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v/s. Shri Dharam Singh & another, First Appeal No. 321/2005 between New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Trilocan Jane, R.P. No. 1362/2011 between Smt. Gyarsi Devi & others v/s. The Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & another dtd. 01.09.2011. OP has also relied upon judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka State Commission in Appeal No. 169/2011 between Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. & Sri. Babu Reddy. The orders passed by the Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble Karnataka State Commission are binding on this Forum and in view of the said judgements, there is no merit in the Complaint filed by the Complainant since he has not produced any documentary evidence to show that he has informed the OP immediately about the theft of the vehicle. Complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of OP and he is not liable for any compensation. Hence, Point Nos. 1 & 2 are held against Complainant.
8. Point No. 3 - In view of the negative findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, the Complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28th day of January 2012.
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA T.RAJASHEKHARAIAH
Member Member President
SSS
