This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; in the presence of             Sri. Ch.V. Ramana, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri. Swarna Rambabu, Advocate for opposite parties No.1&2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O  R  D  E  R

(Per Smt. V. Vijaya Rekha, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.      The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the Hero Honda Splendor Plus Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-20-L-9156 of complainant was insured with the opposite parties on 01-07-2014 vide policy No.10008/31/15/012320 from the period 01-07-2014 to 30-06-2015 covering the risk of damage, theft or loss etc,. The complainant submitted that on 08-12-2014 he went to CADA office, situated at Yellandu ‘X’ Roads, Khammam town on his motor cycle and parked the same in the parking place of CADA building, thereafter, went to Yellandu on another vehicle to attend his duties.  After returning back to CADA Building, he observed that his motor cycle was misplaced.  After all efforts for searching of vehicle went in vain, on the very next day of incident, lodged a complaint before Police-II-Town, Khammam but the police registered the case on 23-12-2014 U/Sec. 379 of I.P.C.  Thereafter, the complainant submitted claim form along with necessary documents and key, those were received by the opposite parties on 30-08-2015.  The police filed final report by treating that the case as ‘UN’.  Immediately, informed the same to the opposite party No.1 by requesting to settle the claim.  The complainant suffered a lot due to non settlement of claim and as there was no response from the opposite parties till the date of complaint, filed the case on hand before this Forum by praying to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/- towards insurance amount under coverage of theft and Rs.60,000/- for causing mental agony and costs.  

3.      In support of his case the complainant filed Exhibits A-1 to A-7.

4.      On being noticed, the opposite parties No.1 & 2 filed counter by denying the averments as mentioned in the complaint.  In the counter, the opposite parties submitted that the complainant neither given immediate information regarding the theft nor submitted claim form within stipulated time.  As per terms and conditions of policy schedule, the notice shall be given in writing to the insurer immediately after incident and thereafter, the insured has to supply all the required information and notice in writing to the insurer.  After receipt of every document, shall be forwarded to the insurer immediately.  The opposite parties further submitted that they requested the complainant through letters dt. 02-01-2015, 31-01-2015 and 04-03-2015 for submission of documents. Though, neither the documents were received nor any response from the complainant in sending of required documents.  Therefore, the claim was treated as no claim and as such prayed to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable either in law or on facts. 

5.      In view of above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Point:-

It is an undisputed fact that the Hero Honda Splendor Plus two Wheeler bearing No.AP-20-L-9156 was insured with the opposite party / insurance company for the period from 01-07-2014 to 30-06-2015.  According to the complainant, the first information report, evidenced under Exhibit A-1, it appears that the incident took place on 08-12-2014 and the matter was reported to the Police-II-Town, Khammam on 23-12-2014.  As per the contents of complaint, on 08-12-2014 the complainant parked the vehicle at parking place of CADA building.  After attending his duties, when he came to the place where he parked the vehicle he found that the vehicle was stolen by some unknown persons.  After all efforts for searching of vehicle were in vain, reported the incident to the police on the very next day but the police registered the complaint on 23-12-2014.  The complainant also submitted that after filing of final report before I-Addl. JFCM, Khammam on 30-08-2015 he requested the insurer to settle the claim as the case was treated as ‘UN’.  He had given sufficient explanation in his complaint for non-registering of complaint before Police immediately after incident.  As per final report, marked under Exhibit A-2, clearly speaks that after investigation, the police came to a conclusion that the incident was took place on 08-12-2014 when the insured noticed that his two wheeler was misplaced from where he parked the vehicle and thereafter he searched the surroundings but not found and also clearly speaks that during his absence some unknown offenders committed theft of his Motor Cycle Chassis No. 05-F-16-C38093, Engine No.05F15M3781/2005.  Finally, the case was referred as ‘UN’. However, the opposite parties failed to settle the claim even after submission of final report.  The opposite parties rejected the claim on the ground of belated intimation and non-submission of documents within stipulated time is clearly amounts to deficiency of service.  In our view, the insurer cannot escape from its liability in case of theft of vehicle, breach of conditions of policy was not germane, the insurer was required to pay at least compensation on non-standard basis.  In this regard we have relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC), where the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in the matter of theft of vehicle, breach of conditions of policy was not germane and also held further “the Appellant insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy to the loss caused to the insurer.  The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of conditions of policy, the appellant insurance company ought to have settled the claim on non standard basis”.  The Hon’ble National Commission also expressed the same opinion in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Gian Singh II (2006) CPJ 83 (NC) “in case of violation of conditions of policy as to the nature of use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be settled on non standard basis”.  Now the question is whether the insurance company is justified in repudiating the claim of complainant for violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy in case of theft of vehicle.  In view of above judgements, the insurer not to disallow the claim of the complainant only on the ground of delay in intimation when there was sufficient explanation. It is not proper on the part of insurance company to repudiate the whole claim on the ground of delay in intimation. Therefore, the insurance company was required to pay at least compensation on non-standard basis to the complainant.  As per Exhibit A-4 the total value of vehicle was mentioned as Rs.16,300/-  (IDV of the vehicle).  Therefore, the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant by holding that the complainant is entitled to 75% of the said insured declared value i.e. Rs.12,225/- on non-standard basis.  

6.      In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.12,225/- towards insurance amount under policy bearing No.10008/31/15/012320 on non-standard basis to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the amount shall carry interest @9% per annum till realization.  Further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs.

           Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 9th day of March, 2017.

                                                                  FAC President                        Member      

     District Consumer Forum,

    Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party  

       -None-                                                                       -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party

Ex.A-1:-

Photocopy of FIR, dt. 23-12-2014.

-Nil-

Ex.A-2:-

Photocopy of Final Report, dt. 30-08-2015.

Ex.A-3:-

Photocopy of Letter dt.09-04-2015 issued by the opposite parties.

Ex.A-4:-

Photocopy of Policy.

Ex.A-5:-

Photocopy of Indmenity cum declaration undertaking, dt.08-01-2015.

Ex.A-6:-

Photocopy of self declaration, dt.08-01-2015 by the complainant.

Ex.A-7:-

Photocopy of Aadhar Card of complainant.

FAC President              Member

     District Consumer Forum,

                        Khammam.