Date of Filing : 04.05. 2012
Date of Order : 11.02.2015.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
THIRU.L.DEENADAYALAN, M.A.B.L., : MEMBER I
TMT. K.AMALA, M.A.B.L., : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.110/2012
WEDNESDAY THIS 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015
S. Natana Sankari,
W/o. K. Shanmugam,
M.G.R. Nagar, East Street,
Sirugudi (Post), Natham (Tk).,
Dindigul District. ..Complainant
..Vs..
1. The Manager,
M/s. Sree Kumaran Thanga Maligai,
6566, Usman Road, Chennai 17.
2. The Divisional Manager,
M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Palaniappa Complex,
1272 – 1273, Mettur Road,
Erode 638 011. .. Opposite parites.
For the Complainant : M/s. A.K. Gopalan,
For the Opposite pary-1 : M/s. A.Kumaraguru.
For the opposite party-2 : exparte.
This complaint is being filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 to pay the insured value of the lost jewel Rs.45,140/- and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for the mental agony to the complainant
ORDER
THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT
1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-
The complainant had purchased Thanuja necklace weighing 21.950 grams for Rs.45,140/- from the 1st opposite party on 21.7.2010 and the said jewel was insured with the 2nd opposite party based on the advice provided by the 1st opposite party. After the purchase of the said jewel the complainant was travelled in bus route number 519 to Mettukuppam at Chennai. While travelling in the bus the above said jewel was missing. and the complainant lodged a complaint at Chennai Thuraipakkam Police Station and the complaint was registered in crime under FIR No.721/2010 dt. 22.7.2010. Subsequently after investigation the police had given a non traceable certificate. Therefore the complainant had made a claim before the 2nd opposite party as directed by the 1st opposite party with the copies of FIR, bill, Insurance certificate but the 2nd opposite party had rejected the complainant’s claim stating that it is not covered under the scope of the policy. Further the complainant had sent a legal notice to the opposite parties on 16.1.2011 to settle the complainant’s claim but the opposite parties had neither replied to the notice nor settled the claim. As such the act of the opposite parties is amounts to deficiency of service and which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. As such the complainant has sought for the insured value of the lost jewel Rs.45,140/- and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for the mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
2. Written version of 1st opposite party is as follows:-
It is true that the complainant had purchased one Thanuja necklace on 21.7.2010 made payment which was insured as well. The 1st opposite party not aware of the complainant’s travel in bus route number 519 and the loss of her jewel enroute. The opposite party does not know the other details regarding lodging of police complaint and other related matters. Since the jewel was insured as per the complainant ‘s request she was directed to approach the insurer, the opposite party did not know the repudiation of claim made by the insurer for it is only to complainant’s knowledge. The claim made are mere fertile imagination and excessive without any basis or documents. The complainant had abused the provisions of C.P. Act and to avoid payment of court fees had filed this vexatious complaint. The complainant grievances if any can be redressed by an appropriate civil court only for the complainant cannot be termed consumer. Hence this opposite party had not committed any deficiency of service and prays to dismiss the complaint.
3. The 2nd opposite party though appeared initially through counsel but subsequently due to non filing of written version he was set exparte on 12.12.2012
4. Complainant has filed her Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked on the side of the complainant. Opposite party-1 has filed his proof affidavit and no documents was marked on the side of the opposite party-1.
5. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled to?
6. Point Nos.1 & 2:
Perused the proof affidavit filed by the complainant, documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8, proof affidavit of the opposite party-1 and considered the both side arguments. There is no dispute that the complainant has purchased Thanuja necklace weighing 21.950 grams for Rs.45,140/- from the 1st opposite party on 21.7.2010 and the same was insured with the 2nd opposite party and are also evidenced by Ex.A1 & Ex.A2. Further the complainant stated that after the purchase of the said jewel she travelled in bus route number 519 to Mettukuppam at Chennai while travelling in the bus the said jewel was stolen and lost and the police complaint was given in this regard in the Thuraipakkam Police Station on 22.7.2010 and the case was registered under Ex.A3 FIR. Further the said police station also given certificate stating that after investigation the stolen jewel was non traceable to the complainant under Ex.A4. The complainant further stated that when the complainant has made claim before the insurance company the 2nd opposite party by letter Ex.A5, it was rejected by the opposite party-2 / the insurance company by its letter dt.28.12.2010 under Ex.A6. Further the complainant also sent a legal notice dt. 16.1.2011 through her counsel to the opposite parties 1 & 2 under Ex.A7 are all evidenced by the documents are all proved by the claimant.
7. Whereas as contended by the 1st opposite party that the jewel was purchased by the complainant from the 1st opposite party and the same was duly handed over to the complainant with insurance certificate by the 1st opposite party there ends their service the 1st opposite party has nothing to do with the missing of jewel by the complainant while travelling in the bus and the 1st opposite party is not liable for claim made by the complainant is acceptable. The 2nd opposite party after claim made by the complainant has admitted in the existence of the insurance but claim was rejected on the ground that since the jewel was missing while travelling in the bus as per the insurance policy the insurance company is not liable to pay the claim of the complainant as mentioned in the letter of the 2nd opposite party under Ex.A6. Therefore it shows that the insurance company of the 2nd opposite party not denied the existence of the insurance for the lost of the jewel.
8. Though considering the above facts and circumstances of the case has submitted by the 1st opposite party is the vendor of the jewel and after receipt of the price of the jewel has been duly handed over to the complainant with the insurance certificate. The 1st opposite party is no way liable for the lost the jewel which was stolen while the complainant was travelling in the bus is acceptable.
10. However the 2nd opposite party insurance company having accepted the existence of the insurance in force at the time of lost of the said jewel as per the insurance policy the 2nd opposite party insurance company is to compensate the value of the jewel under the insurance policy. Contrary to this denying the claim of the complainant stating that the said jewel was missed by the complainant while she was travelling in the bus and not covered under the policy and as such not liable to pay the insurance amount is not acceptable. Further the opposite party had denied the claim by sending the letter Ex.A6 to the complainant the insurance company being the 2nd opposite party in this complaint, though received notice and appeared through counsel in the beginning of this proceedings, but subsequently neither filed written version nor contested the case and remained set exparte. Therefore as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant though the 2nd opposite party being the insurer of the lost jewel of the complainant instead of compensating the cost of the jewel as per the insurance policy, without any valid reasons has rejected the claim of the complainant and also not contested this case and remain exparte are all acceptable. Further even in the letter Ex.A6, dt. 28.12.2010 of the 2nd opposite party there is no valid reason or a correct provision of terms and conditions of the said policy are not mentioned in support of their denial of the claim. Therefore we are of the opinion since the complaint mentioned jewel of the complainant was insured with the 2nd opposite party and when the insurance is in force the said jewel was lost in theft, the insurance company is liable to pay the said jewel amount of Rs.45140/- as per the insurance policy to the claimant /complainant. Hence, the act of rejection of the claim of the complainant by 2nd opposite party is amount to deficiency of service which caused the complainant suffered mental agony as well as hardship. As such the 2nd opposite party is also liable to pay just compensation of Rs.10,000/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards cost of the complaint and the Points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complaint. As far as the 1st opposite party is concern this complaint is to be dismissed.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The 2nd opposite party is directed to pay a insured value of the lost Jewel amount of Rs.45,140/- (Rupees Forty five thousand one hundred and forty only) and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only ) towards compensation for mental agony and hardship and also a sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as cost of the complaint to the complainant. The above amount shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order passed till the date of payment. In respect of the opposite party-1 this complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 11th day of February 2015.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s side documents :
Ex.A1- 21.7.2010 – Copy of the bill given by the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A2- 21.7.2010 – Copy of the Insurance Certificate.
Ex.A3- 22.7.2010 – Copy of the FIR.
Ex.A4- 30.11.2010- Copy of the Non-Traceable Certificate.
Ex.A5- 16.12.2010- Copy of the Claim certificate.
Ex.A6- 28.12.2010- Copy of the reply letter sent by the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A7- 16.1.2011- Copy of the legal notices.
Ex.A8- - Copy of the Ack. Cards.
Opposite parties’ side documents : -
-Nil –
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
