Date of filing:      14.02.2019

                                                                                                                                 Date of disposal : 19.12.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                 .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.ICWA(Inter),B.L.,                                        ....MEMBER-II

 

RBT/CC. No.55/2022

THIS MONDAY, THE 19th DAY OF DECEMBER 2022

(CC.No.32/2019 sent from DCDRC, Chennai North)

 

Mr.R.Mohan, S/o.Ragava Iyer,

No.25, Sairam Nagar North Street,

Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018.                                                             ……Complainant.     

                                                                          //Vs//

 

1.M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,

    Rep. by its Director,

    Regd. & Head Office, GE Plaza, Airport Road,

    Yerwada, Pune 411 006.

 

2.M/s.Bajaji Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,

   Rep. by its Regional Manager,

   Office Nos.276 & 277, N.Nos.497 &498, 5th Floor,

   Ponnamallee High Road, Isana Kattima Building, 

   Chennai600 106.                                                                     .......Opposite parties. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                              :   M/s.N.Varadha Rajan, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite parties                       :   M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates.

                         

This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.32/2019 and transferred to this commission by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as CC.No.55/2022 and this complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 27.03.2023 in the presence of  M/s.N.Varadha Rajan, Advocate counsel for the complainant and M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates counsel for the opposite parties and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT.Dr.S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service in repudiation of the in service claim for theft of the complainant’s vehicle along with prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,15,000/- towards IDV value of the vehicle with 18% interest per annum and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

It was the case of the complainant that he had insured his four wheeler Hyundai I20 Magna Car with Engine No.G4LA9M278720, Chassis No.MALBB51BR9M 115840 bearing Registration No.TN 02 AK 5094 with the opposite parties vide Policy No.OG-17-1501-1801-00024984 for the period 25/11/2016 to 24/11/2017. The vehicle was stolen during early hours of morning on 21/09/2017 while it was parked in front of his house at No.25, Sairam Nagar North Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018.  Hence he had lodged a Police complaint on the same day to E3 Teynampet Police Station, Chennal and the same was registered under FIR No.1779 of 2017 Dt.21/09/2017. He was waiting till 30/09/2017 to know whether the Police could trace the stolen vehicle. But as the vehicle was not traced till 30/09/2017 by the police the Complainant had intimated the 2nd opposite party about the theft of his vehicle through letter Dt.01/10/2017. The 2nd opposite party called upon the Complainant to produce the Original Registration Certificate and Insurance Policy Certificate of the vehicle.  But the Complainant had intimated them that as the Original Registration Certificate and Original Insurance policy of the vehicle were kept in the stolen vehicle he could not produce the same to them and they had instructed to apply and obtain the duplicate registration Certificate of the vehicle from the concerned RTO and submit the same along with the Claim Form to them. Accordingly the Complainant applied and obtained the duplicate registration Certificate of the vehicle from the RTO and had submitted the same along with all other required documents including the Police Non Traceable Certificate and the keys of the vehicle as required by the 2nd opposite party to process his claim. But the 2nd opposite party had informed through their letter dated 26.03.2019 rejecting his claim on untenable grounds by contending that as if the Complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the policy by not intimating the theft of the vehicle to them and to the concern Police authorities in time. It was submitted that the theft was intimated to the Police authorities on the same date. Further the investigation agency also after thorough enquiry had issued the non traceable certificate and the Complainant had also submitted the same to the 2nd opposite party.  The vehicle was parked only in front of his house and the car key was also kept safely inside the house and so the allegations that the Complainant did not take proper precautionary steps to safe guard the key of the vehicle, was untenable and baseless. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,15,000/- towards IDV value of the vehicle with 18% interest per annum and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant. 

Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite parties:-

The opposite parties filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending interaila that the case involves complicated questions of facts and law which require voluminous evidence, oral as well as documentary and hence it is not possible in summary procedure by this commission. The complainant had insured his car with the opposite parties for IDV of Rs.2,15,863/- for the period 25.11.2016 to 24.11.2017. As per the terms and conditions of the policy it is the duty of the insured to intimate the theft to the Insurance Company immediately but the complaint was given only after 12 days i.e. 03.10.2017 from the date of loss which also amounted to violation of policy condition No.1. On the date of theft the main gate and portico was kept open and no security was there to monitor the movements of any person.  The key was hanged in the key stand which was kept in the open portico.  No proper precautionary steps were taken by insured to safe guard the key.  Hence the act of negligence was vital reason for the theft of insured vehicle.  Thus they sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A14. On the side of the opposite parties proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 on their side.

Points for consideration:

Whether the rejection of the claim made by the complainant with the opposite party with respect to the theft of his vehicle on the ground that the intimation of theft was given belatedly amounts to deficiency in service?

If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:-

On the side of complainant the following documents were submitted in support or the complaint allegations;

Duplicate RC Book was marked as Ex.A1;

Car insurance policy for the period of 25.11.2016 to 24.11.2017 was marked as Ex.A2;

Copy of FIR dated 21.09.2017 was marked as Ex.A3;

Letter sent by the complainant to opposite parties dated 01.10.2017 was marked as Ex.A4;

Letter sent by the opposite parties to the complainant dated 07.12.2017 was marked as Ex.A5;

Opposite parties acknowledgment dated 14.12.2017 was marked as Ex.A6;

Letter sent by the opposite parties to the complainant dated 29.01.2018 was marked as Ex.A7;

Letter sent by the complainant to Police Station dated 29.01.2018 was marked as Ex.A8;

Letter sent by the opposite parties to the complainant dated 14.02.2018 was marked as Ex.A9;

Letter sent by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 17.02.2018 was marked as Ex.A10;

Letter sent by the opposite parties to the complainant dated 26.03.2018 was marked as Ex.A11;

Non Traceable Certificate dated 03.04.2018 was marked as Ex.A12;

Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 22.12.2018 was marked as Ex.A13;

Acknowledgement card for proof of delivery was marked as Ex.A14;

On the side of opposite parties the following documents were submitted in support of their defence;

Copy of policy with terms and conditions was marked as Ex.B1;

Claim Form was marked as Ex.B2;

Investigation Report dated 18.01.2017 was marked as Ex.B3;

The crux of the oral arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant is that on 21.09.2017 the vehicle was kept in the portico and was found missing and on the very same day a police complaint was lodged.  On 01.10.2017 a claim was also submitted with the opposite parties as after preliminary investigation no clue was got by the police for tracing the vehicle.  Thus there was no violation of policy condition No.1 in intimating the theft of the vehicle to the opposite parties. Further as submitted by the opposite parties in their version the key of the vehicle was not kept in the portico.  Further the opposite parties did not enter the evidence box to prove that the complainant was negligent.  He also cited a decision rendered in Civil Appeal No.653/2020 in Gurshinder Singh Vs Shriram General Insurance Company dated 24.01.2020 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it has been categorically held that delay in intimation to the insurance company is not a ground for repudiation of the insurance claim. Thus he prayed for complaint to be allowed as prayed for.

On the other hand, the opposite party’s counsel admitted the theft but disputed the date of occurrence and also stated that there was more than 10 days delay in intimating the insurance company.  Further he argued that the complainant was negligent in taking care of the vehicle thus violating the condition No.4 of the policy.  By not giving the intimation immediately it is meant that the complainant was not cooperating and coordinating with the insurance company.  Thus he sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

 On perusal of the documents submitted by the complainant it is seen that the FIR was filed on 21.09.2017 in proof of theft of the vehicle.  It is also stated in the said FIR that on 16.07.2017 the complainant left the vehicle in the portico and had gone to Bangalore.  When he returned on 21.09.2017 early morning he got intimation from his Manager that the vehicle was not found.  Immediately on the same day, he approached the police and had given complaint which was registered as FIR No.1779.  In such circumstances, it could not be termed that the complainant caused delay in intimating the police as, as soon as he came to know that the vehicle was missing immediately intimated the same to the police. Further for the defence that, the complainant was negligent in taking care of the vehicle, as rightly pointed out by the counsel appearing for the complainant no evidence was put forth by the opposite parties.  Thus the defence by the opposite parties that the complainant had committed violation of condition No.4 in not taking appropriate care of the vehicle could not be accepted. Hence, it is amply proved that the reasons cited by the opposite parties for rejecting the insurance claim for the theft of vehicle is baseless.  Thus the point is answered accordingly holding that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the complainant. 

Point No.2:-

  As we have held above that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in rejecting the claim, we direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,72,690/- towards the value of the vehicle. Further, for causing mental agony and hardship to the complainant we award a sum of Rs.10,000/- to be paid as compensation by the opposite parties.  We also award Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant. 

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties 1 & 2 directing them

a) To pay a sum of Rs.1,72,690/- (Rupees one lakh seventy two thousand six hundred ninety only) to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; 

b)  To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant. 

c)  To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant. 

d) Amount in clause (a) if not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, interest at the rate of 6% will be levied on the said amount from the date of complaint till realization. 

 

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 19th day of December 2022.

 

           -Sd-                                                                                                     -Sd- 

MEMBER-II                                                                                               PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 ............ Duplicate RC Book. Xerox

Ex.A2 ............ Car Insurance Policy for the period of 25.11.2016 to 24.11.2017. Xerox

Ex.A3 21.09.2017 Copy of FIR. Xerox

Ex.A4 01.10.2017 Letter sent by the complainant to opposite parties. Xerox

Ex.A5 07.12.2017 Letter sent by the opposite parties to the complainant. Xerox

Ex.A6 14.12.2017 Opposite parties acknowledgement. Xerox

Ex.A7 29.01.2018 Letter sent by the opposite parties to the complainant. Xerox

Ex.A8 29.01.2018 Letter sent by the complainant to the Police Station. Xerox

Ex.A9

14.02.2018 Letter sent by the opposite parties to the complainant. Xerox

Ex.A10 17.02.2018 Letter sent by the complainant to the opposite parties. Xerox

Ex.A11 26.03.2018 Letter sent by the opposite parties to the complainant. Xerox

Ex.A12 03.04.2018 Non Traceable Certificate. Xerox

Ex.A13 22.12.2018 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Xerox

Ex.A14 ................. Acknowledgement card for proof of delivery. Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the opposite parties:-

 

Ex.B1 ........... Copy of policy with Terms and conditions. Xerox

Ex.B2 ............ Claim Form. Xerox

Ex.B3 18.01.2017 Investigation Report. Xerox

 

 

      -Sd-                                                                                                                  -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                                                                                     PRESIDENT