Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/51/2015

Sundaralingam.V - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.ICICI LOmbard GIC Ltd., Rep by its Manager - Opp.Party(s)

K.P.P.Raja Raja Chozhan

11 May 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  17.03.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  11.05.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

FRIDAY THE 11^th DAY OF MAY 2018

 

C.C.NO.51/2015

 

 

Sundaralingam. V,

S-4, Saravana Apartments,

Gangaiammal Koil, 4^th Street,

Vadapalani,

Chennai – 600 026.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.M/s. ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd.,

Rep by its Manager-Claims,

Having Office at

No.401 & 402, 4^th Floor, Interface 11,

New Linking Road,

Malad (West),

Mumbai – 400 064.

 

2.M/s. ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd.,

Rep by its Manager-Claims,

Having Office at

No.140, 2^nd & 3^rd Floor,

Chotabai Centre,

Nungambakkam High Road,

Chennai – 600 034.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 19.03.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : K.P.P.Raja Raja Chozhan, C.S.Anu

                                                                   Varghese

 

Counsel for Opposite Parties                    : Mrs.Elveera Ravindran, K.Vinod

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 28,838/- towards the cost of vehicle and also compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant is the owner of the Bajaji Pulsor Bike from the year 2011 onwards. He insured the said vehicle with the 1^st opposite party for the period from 15.02.2014 to 15.02.2015. On 25.03.2014 the complainant parked his vehicle in his rental house situated at 10/19, Kamarajar Nagar, 2^nd Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai – 94 and he left his native place in Madurai on that day. On return on 19.04.2014 he found that his vehicle was missing. He went to the F-5, Choolaimedu Police Station to register the complaint. But the inspector of police informed him that they will find the vehicle in a day or two.  Hence the complainant left the station.

          2. On 20.04.2014 the complainant received information that his father was hospitalized and he immediately went to his native place. He engaged his friend Satish to follow the police station to register complaint and however the police did not register the case. Hence the complainant returned to Chennai and after his persuasion the police registered FIR in Crime No.577/2014 on 07.05.2014. 

          3. The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for claims. As instructed by the executives of the opposite parties, the complainant sent claim form with all the documents along with FIR to the 1^st opposite party. On 12.06.2014 the complainant received a letter from the 1^st opposite party that the complainant submitted claim form with delay in filing the FIR and hence they cannot take the claim. Again the 1^st opposite party sent letter dated 08.08.2014 stating that the claim was rejected due to delay in filing FIR. The complainant father was admitted in the hospital and that was not considered. The opposite parties rejecting claim is not sustainable and therefore committed deficiency to him. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 28,838/- towards cost of vehicle and also compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint.

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The opposite parties admit that the complainant insured his vehicle with them for the period 15.02.2014 to 14.02.2015. The complainant leaving the vehicle in an abandoned condition for such a long day is gross negligent act on his part. As per the policy condition immediate to occurrence intimation shall be furnished to the opposite parties. The complainant lodged complaint to the police on 07.05.2014 with a delay of 25 days and intimated the opposite parties after a delay of 31 days. The delay in intimating the occurrence will deprive the opposite parties to ascertain the genuineness of the alleged theft. Therefore, due to delay in intimating to the police and to the insured, the complainant is not entitled for claim as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence the opposite parties rightly repudiated the claim and no deficiency committed by them and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.       

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

6. POINT NO :1 

          The admitted facts are that the complainant is the owner of the Bajaji Pulsor  Bike from the year 2011 onwards and Ex.A1 RC Book is the proof for the same and  he insured  the said vehicle with the 1^st opposite party for the period from 15.02.2014 to 14.02.2015 and  they issued Es.A2 insurance Policy and the complainant on 25.03.2014 parked his vehicle in his rental house situated  at 10/19, Kamarajar Nagar, 2^nd Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai – 94 and he left to his native place in Madurai on that day and on return on 19.04.2014 he found that his vehicle was missing and he went to the F-5, Choolaimedu Police Station to register the complaint and the inspector registered Ex.A3 FIR in Crime No.577/2014 on 07.05.2014 and after that the complainant made claim to the 1^st opposite party and he rejected the claim due to delay in registering FIR.  

          7. According to the complainant he had parked the vehicle in front of his house on 25.03.2014 and left to his native place at Madurai. On return, on 19.04.2014 he found that the vehicle was missing. Hence, the date of knowledge of theft on 19.04.2014 can be taken as the date of theft of vehicle. The complainant should have registered the complaint on 19.04.2014. But he would state that he gave complaint on 19.04.2014 and the police said they will find the vehicle in a day or two and he left for Madurai on 20.04.2014 as his father admitted in the hospital and after return he gave complaint on 07.05.2014. Ex.A3 is the registered FIR. In the said FIR complainant stated that on 19.04.2014 his vehicle was missing. However, he had not given any explanation for the delay in preferring complaint in the FIR that he went to Madurai on 20.04.2014 to see his father as he was hospitalized and he attempted to give complaint on 19.04.2014 and that was not received by the Inspector of Police. Absolutely, from the date of occurrence to till the date of registering FIR there is a delay of 18 days in registering the case and such a delay was not at all explained by the complainant.

          8. The complainant intimated the opposite parties by making claim only after receiving the FIR. As such in intimating the opposite parties through claim there is a delay of 31 days. Even after receipt of FIR more than 12 days delay in lodging claim and such delay was not explained by the complainant. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant bound to inform the policy and insurer immediately. If the theft is intimated immediate to occurrence, the police and the insurer persons will have a chance to follow and trace the offender and to recover the vehicle from him. In this case the complainant intimated the police as well as the insurer with a huge delay and by the time the offender should have fled to a long distance and the vehicle in question cannot be traced. Therefore, we hold that the delay in intimating the police and insurer is fatal to the complainant case and the opposite parties also rightly rejected the claim made by the complainant and in view of the same, it is held that the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service.

 

 

 

 

09. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 11^th day of May 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 20.09.2011                   Copy of the R.C.Book

Ex.A2 dated 15.02.2014                   Copy of the Insurance Certificate

Ex.A3 dated 07.05.2014                   Copy of the FIR in Crime No.577/2014

Ex.A4 dated 12.06.2014                   Copy of the Letter given by the 1^st opposite party

Ex.A5 dated 08.08.2014                   Copy of the letter given by the 1^st opposite party

                                                    rejecting the claim     

 

Ex.A6 dated 05.01.2015                   Copy of the Legal Notice sent to the 1^st opposite

                                                    party with postal receipt and acknowledgement

                                                    receipts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Policy of Insurance bearing

                                                    No.3005/2010045494/B0/0000003935

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                     Terms and conditions of the policy

 

Ex.B3 dated NIL                     Claim Form

 

Ex.B4 dated 12.06.2014                   Letter sent by opposite parties to complainant

 

Ex.B5 dated 08.08.2014                   Letter sent by opposite parties to complainant to

                                                    repudiating the claim

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT