DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 28th day of September 2017
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 14/11/2016
: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
(C.C.No.178/2016)
Rafeek.M, - Complainant
S/o Meeran,
No.4/439, 14/395,
Chathankulangara Paramba,
Kannadi (po), Palakkad 678 701.
(Adv.A.V.Ravi & Samisha Arun)
V/s
1. The Manager, - Opposite party
M/s Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd,
1st Floor, Vishnu Building, KP Vallon Road,
Kadavanthara, Cochin 682 020.
2. The manager,
M/s Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd,
Registered Office, Reliance Centre, No.19,
Walchand Hirachand Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001
(Adv.Ullas Sudhakaran)
O R D E R
By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member,
Brief Facts of the complaint
The complaint is briefly discussed as follows:
The complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle, namely Honda CB Unicorn bearing registration No:KL-09-AD-4775. The vehicle was insured with the opposite parties as per policy no.2209552312013402 for the period from 17.11.2015 to 16.11.2016. The insurance policy is a package premium policy and the complainant paid Rs.1,818/- as premium as directed by the opposite parties. On 06.05.2016 between 19.00 hours and 21.00 hours the vehicle was lost and there after the complainant came to know that the vehicle was stolen by somebody. On 07.05.2016 the complainant approached the Station House Officer of Palakkad Town South Police Station and reported that his vehicle was stolen. He recorded the statement of the complainant and registered a crime No.498/2016 of Town South Police Station under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the complainant the investigation is going on and final report will be submitted before the court. The complainant also approached the opposite parties to get the insurance claim to his vehicle. But the opposite parties rejected arbitrarily the claim of the complainant without valid reasons which, according to the complainant, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant pleads that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant because there is a valid policy on the date of theft. Hence the complainant prays to the Hon’ble Forum to direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to make available the insurance policy benefits and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties and mental agony caused to the complainant plus cost of this complaint plus any other relief.
The complaint was admitted and notices were sent to opposite parties.
In the version jointly filed by opposite parties 1 & 2, they contend that save all those averments in the complaint which are expressly admitted, the remaining are denied by them. Opposite parties admit that complainant is the registered owner of the two wheeler with registration No. KL-09-AD-4775 and he had availed insurance coverage for the said vehicle from the opposite parties as per the package policy for the period from 17.11.2015 to 16.11.2016 by paying premium of Rs.1,318/-. Opposite parties contend that on enquiry made on behalf of the opposite party it is revealed that there was excessive delay on the part of the complainant in reporting about the alleged incident in the concerned police station and to the opposite parties, although as per the condition no.1 of the policy issued to the complainant, it is obligatory for the complainant to report immediately about the alleged incident to the opposite parties and the concerned police station and get the crime registered immediately on the occurrence of any accident, loss or damage to the insured vehicle or theft or criminal act. In this particular case opposite parties contend that though the vehicle is said to have been missing from 06.05.2016 the complaint is lodged and FIR is registered only on 17.05.2016. Hence according to the opposite party complainant has failed in his duty to immediately report about the alleged incident to the opposite parties. The inordinate delay on the part of the complaint has violated Material Policy condition No.1 and hence opposite party repudiated the claim of the complaint. Hence opposite parties contend that repudiation of complainant’s claim would not amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence opposite parties pray to the Hon’ble Forum to uphold their contentions and dismiss the complaint with cost to opposite parties.
Complaint filed chief affidavit. He also filed IA/144/2017 seeking permission to cross examine opposite party which was allowed and opposite party was cross examined as DW1. From the side of the complainant Exts.A1 to A6 were marked and on the side of the opposite parties Exts.B1 to B4 were marked. Both parties were heard.
The following issues crop up in this case.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties?
- If so what is the relief and cost?
Issues 1 & 2
The complainant was the registered owner of the vehicle whose
registration No. was KL-09-AD-4775. Photo copy of RC book of the concerned vehicle was marked as Ext.A6 which indicates all particulars of the vehicle, details of tax paid etc. The vehicle was insured for the period from 17.11.2015 to 16.11.2016 and the insurance policy issued by the opposite parties to the complainant in respect of the vehicle was marked as Ext.A1 which indicates the terms and conditions of the insurance contract. The insurance policy is a Package Premium Policy and the premium amount paid by the complainant was Rs.1,318/-. On the theft of the vehicle the complainant went to Palakkad Town South Police Station where his statement was recorded and crime No. 498/2016 was registered. The first information report issued by Town South Police Station Sub Inspector was marked as Ext.A2 which shows date of occurrence of offence as 06.05.2016 between 19 hours and 21 hours and, information received at this police station as 17.10 hours on 17.05.2016. Complainant also approached the opposite parties for getting the insurance claim on the disputed vehicle and the motor claim form is submitted by him after duly filling it up. The motor claim form filled by the complainant and submitted to the insurance company was marked as Ext.A3 which reveals personal details of owner, vehicle details, details of accident/theft etc. Theft intimation was also given to the RTO, Palakkad the receipt of theft intimation is marked as Ext.A4 which shows the date of receipt of theft intimation from the complainant as 23.05.2016. According to the complainant the opposite parties arbitrarily rejected the claim submitted by the complainant and the claim repudiation letter issued by 2nd opposite party is marked as Ext.A5 which, according to the complainant, does not show valid reasons for rejection of the claim of the complainant. Hence complainant prays to the Hon’ble Forum to direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to make available the insurance policy benefits and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
In the version jointly filed by both opposite parties it is contended that complainant is the registered owner of the two wheeler vehicle with registration No. KL-09-AD-4775 and he had availed insurance coverage for this vehicle the details of which are mentioned in Ext.B1. According to opposite parties complainant failed to immediately report about the alleged incident of theft to the opposite parties and the same was reported only on 23.05.2016. Letter of intimation of theft of the complainant’s vehicle to the opposite party dated.23.05.2016 was marked as Ext.B2 which shows that complainant intimated the opposite party about theft only on 23.05.2016. Ext.B3 which shows personal details, vehicle details etc. is the claim form submitted by the complainant. Opposite parties sent a letter to the complainant which shows clearly that complainant’s claim was repudiated and reason for repudiation of the claim. This letter is marked as Ext.B4.
There for opposite parties pray to the Hon’ble Forum to uphold their contentions and dismiss the complaint with cost to opposite parties.
From the above documentary evidences submitted we observe that the complainant has not seen reported immediately about the alleged incident of theft of his vehicle to the concerned police station and to the opposite parties which is mandatory on the part of the complainant as per Clause No.1 of the policy condition in the policy issued to him. Hence we view that opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by repudiating the claim of the complainant.
Therefore complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of September 2017.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 - Terms and conditions of the insurance contract issued by Reliance
General Insurance Co.Ltd
Ext.A2 – Copy of FIR dated.17.05.2016 received from the Sub Inspector of Palakkad
Town South Police Station
Ext.A3 – Motor Claim Form submitted by the complainant to opposite parties
Ext.A4 - Receipt of theft intimation issued by RTO, Palakkad to the
complainant
Ext.A5 - Claim repudiation letter issued by 2nd opposite party to the
complainant dated. 28.05.2016
Ext.A6 - Photo copy of RC Book of the vehicle No. KL-09-AD-4775
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Ext.B1 - Details of insurance coverage of the complainant’s vehicle No.KL-09-
AD-4775
Ext.B2 - Intimation letter sent by the complainant to opposite parties dated.
23.05.2016
Ext.B3 - Claim form duly filled by and submitted by the complainant to the
opposite parties
Ext.B4 - Claim repudiation letter issued by 2nd opposite party to the
complainant dated. 28.05.2016 showing reasons for repudiating
his claim
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
DW 1 - Cheriyan Kurian.N
Cost
Nil
