Date of Filing:19.06.2009<br /> Date of Order: 11.11.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1420 OF 2009<br /> <br /> R. Ravi Kumar<br /> S/o. Rangaswamaiah<br /> No. 96, 4th Cross<br /> Hegganahalli Cross<br /> Sri Gandha Nagara<br /> Bangalore 560 091 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.<br /> By its Division Manager<br /> Dvision Office – VI<br /> No. 364/1, 10th ‘B’ Main Road<br /> III Block, Jayanagar<br /> Bangalore 11 Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> The facts of the case are that complainant is a registered owner of Hero Honda Vehicle. Vehicle was insured with opposite party. Policy was insured from 04.11.2008 to 03.11.2009. On 26.02.2009 he had parked vehicle near Kalyan Mantapa, Kamakshipalya, Magadi Road. After reception function he returned back and noticed that vehicle was not there. He rushed to the traffic police. Thereafter, he rushed to the Vijayanagar Police Station and nobody gave exact information about the vehicle. On 27.02.2009 he went to the police station and enquired with the police that the vehicle was towed by the traffic police. Vijayanagar police denied to receive the complaint. On 28.02.2009 he went to Kamakshipalya police Station and they also denied to take complaint for want of jurisdiction. On proper enquiry it was found that parking place comes within the jurisdiction of Vijayanagar Police Station. The complainant gave his complaint on 01.03.2009 and same was registered as crime No. 135/2009 and FIR was submitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate. After investigation police issued notice to complainant about the non-tracing of motor cycle. Thereafter, complainant filed claim petition before the opposite party along with necessary documents and requested for settlement of claim. On 30.03.2009 opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that theft not reported to company within 48 hours of its occurrence. Complainant has not violated any of the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. The repudiation of the claim was illegal. Complainant put to irreparable loss and mental agony due to non-settlement of the claim. Therefore, he filed this complaint seeking the value of the vehicle with compensation and interest.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in his appearance through advocate and defence version filed admitting that vehicle was insured with the opposite party. As per the policy claim of theft of vehicle not payable if theft not reported to company within 48 hours of its occurrence. Therefore, on this ground the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant. The opposite party denied having committed any deficiency in service. Therefore, requested to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Affidavit evidences of respective parties have filed.<br /> 4. Arguments are heard.<br /> 5. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim amount?<br /> 6. I have gone through the complaint, defence version, documents and affidavits filed by the parties. <br /> 7. The complainant has produced policy taken by him. As per the policy IDV was Rs. 39,283/-. Policy period was from 04.11.2008 to midnight 03.11.2009. The complainant has produced copy of FIR of Kamakshipalya Police Station. As per the FIR the date of occurrence of offence was 26.02.2009 at 8.30 p.m. and the police registered the case for the offence under section 154 Cr. PC on 01.03.2009. FIR was submitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate by the police. The copy of complaint filed to the police was produced. Certificate of registration of vehicle has been produced. The year of manufacture of vehicle was 2008. The complainant has explained in detail in his complaint and also in his affidavit about the problem faced by him in registering the case of theft with the police. There was some problem in respect of jurisdiction of the place of offence. As per the complainant the theft has taken place on 26.02.2009 when he had parked vehicle near Kalyana Mantapa. He went to Vijayanagar Police Station. They did not accept the complaint. He enquired with the Vijayanagar traffic police to make himself sure whether the vehicle has been towed by the traffic police on the ground of parking the vehicle at no parking area. There he could not get any information. Thereafter, he went to Kamakshipalya Police Station to lodge his complaint and did not found the vehicle there and he again went to Vijayanagar Police station and they denied to accept the complaint on the ground of jurisdiction and again he was asked to go to Kamakshipalya Police Station and file complaint there. So in this way the complainant spent 2 to 3 days in finding the correct information and proper police station to lodge his complaint. Ultimately, on 01.03.2009 the Kamakshipalya Police have registered complaint in Crime No. 0135/09 for the offence punishable under section 154 Cr. PC and submitted FIR. The police could not trace the vehicle and notice issued to complainant stating that vehicle was not traced. Thereafter, complainant filed his claim petition before the opposite party along with all necessary documents. As per the affidavit filed by the opposite party the complainant intimated the opposite party theft of the vehicle on 09.03.2009. This fact has been admitted by the opposite party himself in the affidavit filed by authorized signatory of the opposite party. The opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant by writing letter on 30.03.2009 stating that claim stands repudiated on the basis of policy condition that claim for theft of vehicle not payable if theft not reported to company within 48 hours of its occurrence. No doubt there is some delay in intimating the theft of vehicle to the opposite party. The delay in this case is not inordinate delay. Within 2 to 3 days he registered complaint with the police and he spent 2 to 3 days time by visiting the police station and police could not register the case on the ground of jurisdiction and the complainant was asked to go to the proper police station. So under these confusing stage there was some delay in intimating the theft to the opposite party. The opposite party company could have condoned the delay and accepted the claim. No doubt it is one of the policy condition that claim for theft of vehicle was not payable if theft was not reported to company within 48 house of its occurrence. We feel this condition is not mandatory. It is only directory condition. There is no reason in putting this condition. It could have been no change or any effect even if the theft of vehicle was reported to the opposite party company within 48 hours of its occurrence. When the conditions are not mandatory in nature there is absolutely no legal hurdles or barrier to pay the claim amount. If under a given situation two interpretations are possible, an interpretation which is favourable to the customer should be given effect to. There are no other valid reasons for the opposite party company to reject claim. The Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interests of consumers. The complainant having taken policy paid the premium on the amount his interest requires to be protected by directing the opposite party to pay the claim amount. As per the RC book vehicle is of the year 2008 and the theft has taken place in the year 2009. Therefore, 10% deduction shall have to be given towards depreciation. The declared value of the vehicle is Rs. 39,283/-. After deducting 10% of the IDV (Rs. 3928) the net amount payable to the complainant comes to Rs. 35,355/-. It is just, fair and reasonable to direct the opposite party to pay this amount. The repudiation of the claim amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 8. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 35,355/- to the complainant within four weeks from the date of this order. In the event of non-payment of said amount within four weeks the above amount carries interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order till payment / realization.<br /> 9. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br />