Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/10/2015

S.K.Sridhar, S/o. S.Subramanyam - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S.United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Represented by its Divisional Manager - Opp.Party(s)

A.Niveditha

02 May 2016

ORDER

Filing Date: 13.03.2015

Order Date:02.05.2016

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

MONDAY THE SECOND DAY OF MAY, TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.10/2015

 

 

Between

 

S.Sridhar @ S.K.Sridhar,

S/o. S.Subramanyam,

Hindu, aged about 38 years,

Residing at: D.No.4-60, Narayanavam Road,

Puttur,

Chittoor District.

 

Presently residing at:

 

D.No.18-1-401/A, Bhavani Nagar,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                              … Complainant

 

 

 

And

 

 

M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Divisional Manager,

Room Nos.7 and 8, 1^st Floor, Sridevi Complex,

Tilak Road,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                              …  Opposite party.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 20.04.16 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing A.Niveditha, A.Chandrasekhar, counsel for the complainant, and Prem Kumar Karanam, counsel for the opposite party, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

 

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant against the opposite party for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite party to settle the claim of Rs.40,000/- as per the policy terms, 2) to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and 3) to pay costs of the complaint.

            2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:-  that the complainant has a Bajaj Pulsar – 150 DTS motorcycle, bearing No.AP-03/AP-7059, which was insured with opposite party insurance company for Rs.40,000/- and the opposite party issued policy bearing No.051200/31/11/0100004534 for the period form 02.10.2011 to 01.10.2012 in the name of the complainant. That the said vehicle was stolen on 22.05.2012 at about 10 a.m., while it was parked opposite to complainant’s office at D.No.20-01-91/D1, A.S.M.Complex, First Floor, Abbanna Colony, Opp. S.K.Fast Food, Sree Sai Venkateswara Marketing & Distributor. The complainant noticed the same at about 2 p.m. on the same day, searched for it here and there but in vain. Complainant gave report to police on 30.05.2012 at about 2 p.m. and the east police, Tirupati, registered a case in Crime No.244/2012. Later, the police filed final report before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class, stating that the vehicle is “undetectable” and the same is informed to the complainant in the second week of February 2015. Immediately, complainant approached the opposite party and informed about the theft of the vehicle and requested them to release the insurance amount for the loss of vehicle, but the opposite party did not settle the claim, and made the complainant to run from pillar to post. The complainant, therefore, issued legal notice to opposite party on 23.02.2015 requesting them to settle the claim, but the opposite party neither gave reply nor settle the claim. Hence the complaint.

            3.  Opposite party filed written version denying parawise allegations in the complaint in Toto, including insurance of Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing No.AP-03-AP-7059 of the complainant with opposite party and issuing the policy bearing No. 051200/31/11/0100004534 in the name of the complainant for the period from 02.10.2011 to 01.10.2012 (as per para.3 of written version). The opposite party further contended that one S.Sridhar, S/o. S.Subramanyam, resident of H.No.4-60, Narayanavanam Road, Puttur, Chittoor District, insured his vehicle bearing No.AP-03-AP-7059, with the opposite party for the period from 02.10.2011 to 01.10.2012 for Rs.40,000/-. S.Sridhar, S/o. S.Subramanyam, D.No.18-1-401/A, Bhavani Nagar, Tirupati, Chittoor District, came to the office of opposite party and submitted a letter of intimation dt:04.06.2012 stating that his motorcycle bearing No.AP-03-AP-7059 was stolen. Along with the letter of intimation, he also submitted the copies of R.C. of the vehicle, insurance policy and FIR. As per FIR contents, theft was occurred on 22.05.2012. He lodged a complaint to the police on 30.05.2012, after lapse of 8 days from the date of theft, informed the opposite parties on 04.06.2012 i.e. about 14 days after theft.

            4.  Immediately, after receiving the written intimation and after processing the papers submitted by the complainant, opposite party sent letters dt:05.07.2012, 16.08.2012, to S.Sridhar, H.No.4-60, Narayanavanam Road, Puttur, Chittoor District (the registered address mentioned in the policy), but the complainant neither complied with the requirements nor submitted the required papers and he did not turn-up. He could not explain the reasons for non-submission of required papers, to process his claim. However, his claim is processed and instructed the valuer to assess the market value of the vehicle. The valuer assessed the value of the vehicle (value column left blank) and submitted valuation certificate. The opposite party sent letter finally on 15.10.2012 to complainant’s residential address No.4-60, Narayanavanam Road, Puttur, calling upon him to submit required documents within a week, failing which there is no claim from his end and the claim will be deemed to be closed, inspite of it no response is there from the complainant.

            5.  The opposite party received legal notice from the advocate of the complainant on 23.02.2015 about 2 years after theft, as if the opposite party did not settle the claim. Complaint is filed for wrongful gain. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Complaint is not maintainable and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            6.  Both the parties have filed their respective evidence affidavits as P.W.1 and R.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 for the complainant and Exs.B1 to B7 for opposite party and both parties have filed their respective written arguments.

            7.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i). Whether the opposite party is guilty of unfair trade practice?

            (ii). Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

            (iii)  To what relief?

            8.  Point No.(i):- the contention of the opposite party is that there is delay in intimation about theft of the vehicle, that the opposite party sent letters under Exs.B2 to B6 to the complainant, requesting him to furnish certain information to process his claim, but the complainant did not respond, as such opposite party could not process the claim, that the complainant got issued legal notice, as if opposite party did not did not settle the claim, there is no negligence on the part of the opposite party and the opposite party did not adopt any unfair trade practice as alleged.

            9.  At para.6 of the written version, it shows that one S.Sridhar, S/o. S.Subramanyam, residing at H.No.4-60, Narayanavanam Road, Puttur, insured his Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing No.AP-03-AP-7059 with the opposite party for the period from 02.10.2011 to 01.10.2012 and opposite party issued policy bearing No.051200/31/11/01/00004534, to cover all risks subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Para.7 of written version shows that one S.Sridhar, S/o. Subramanyam, residing at D.No.18-1-401/A, Bhavani Nagar, Tirupati, came to the office of opposite party on 04.06.2012 and submitted a letter of intimation stating that his motorcycle bearing No.AP-03-AP-7059, Bajaj Pulsar, was stolen. Along with the letter of intimation, he also submitted a copy of R.C., copy of insurance policy and copy of FIR, as per which the complaint was lodged on 30.05.2012

            10.  It is not the case of opposite party that the person by name S.Sridhar, who gave letter of intimation to opposite party on 04.06.2012 regarding the theft of motorcycle in question, is not the person, who insured his vehicle with the opposite party. Thus, there is no dispute with regard to the person insured the vehicle and there is no dispute with regard to identity of the motorcycle and also there is no dispute with regard to the insurance policy issued by the opposite party in respect of the motorcycle bearing No. AP-03-AP-7059 Bajaj Pulsar, which stood admittedly in the name of S.Sridhar, S/o. Subramanyam, the complainant herein, who is also the person insured the vehicle with opposite party. So, the dispute is only with regard to the address. On the date of insuring the vehicle with opposite party, the said Sridhar was resident of H.No.4-60, Narayanavanam Road, Puttur, whereas on the date of lodging the complaint and on the date of giving intimation about theft of the vehicle to opposite party, he is residing at H.No.18-1-401/A, Bhavani Nagar, Tirupati. The vehicle was insured on 02.10.2011, the letter of intimation was given on 04.06.2012, that is about 7 months after the vehicle was insured with the opposite party. In the letter of intimation his address was furnished clearly, therefore, the opposite party is expected to make any correspondence with the complainant / insurer to the address furnished in the letter of intimation, instead of it, the opposite party simply contending that he sent as many as three letters to the complainant to his earlier address i.e. H.No.4-60, Narayanavanam Road, Puttur, requiring some information and documents. When the opposite party is very well aware of the address of the complainant by the letter of intimation on 04.06.2012, it seems the opposite party intentionally sent the letters to his earlier address, which was shows in the registration form at the time of registering the vehicle / insuring the vehicle. So, it is totally unfair and un-warranted on the part of the opposite party.

            11.  It is also not the case of opposite party that the complainant is not entitled to the claim amount. The specific contention on the other hand is that since the complainant failed to respond the letters said to have been addressed to the complainant under Exs.B2 to B6, his claim is deemed to have been closed. As per the sentence mentioned in the written version, as well as in the chief affidavit filed by the opposite party, whatever the letters said to have been addressed by the opposite party are out of the knowledge of the complainant, because complainant was staying in the address at D.No.18-1-401/A, Bhavani Nagar, Tirupati, as against the letters were sent to his earlier address D.No.4-60, Narayanavanam Road, Puttur. As such there is no scope for the complainant to answer the letters said to have been sent by the opposite party. When the complainant himself furnished his present address to the opposite party on 04.06.2012, by way of letter of intimation, the opposite party ought to have send atleast one letter or made any sort of correspondence with the complainant to his address D.No.18-1-401/A, Bhavani Nagar, Tirupati, but no such attempt was made by the opposite party.

            12.  The complainant already gave report to police with regard to theft of his motorcycle and that a case in Crime No.244/2012, was registered by the East Police Station, Tirupati, and took-up investigation and filed final report stating that the vehicle is “undetectable” under Ex.A2. Theft was on 22.05.2012, complaint was lodged on 30.05.2012 and intimation with regard to theft of the vehicle was given to opposite party on 04.06.2012. So, there is no much delay as contended by the opposite party in lodging complaint. The reason assigned by the complainant for the delay is that he searched for his stolen vehicle here and there and finally he lodged a complaint on 30.05.2012 appears to be just and reasonable. When the opposite party itself admitted that the complainant came to their office on 04.06.2012 and presented the letter of intimation along with some other documents including FIR, they cannot agitate that there is delay in intimation. Whatever the delay, that was occurred is because of the investigation in Crime No.244/2012, so the delay cannot be fatal to the claim of the complainant. The attitude of opposite party appears to be unfair trade practice because it sent the notices to the complainant under Exs.B2 to B6 intentionally to the address where the complainant is not residing. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is guilty of unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly, this point is answered.

            13.  Point No.(ii):-   as there is no dispute with regard to insuring the vehicle, identity of the vehicle and identity of the person who insured the vehicle and also no dispute with regard to issuance of insurance policy on the vehicle bearing No.AP-03-AP-7059 Bajaj Pulsar, which stood in the name of the complainant and there is no dispute with regard to theft of the said vehicle. In view of all the above admitted facts, in our opinion, the complainant is entitled to the claim i.e. assured amount of Rs.40,000/- and also compensation for the mental agony caused by the opposite party. Accordingly, this point is answered.

            14.  Point No.(iii):- in view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to the relief of sum assured with the opposite party on the vehicle bearing No.AP-03-AP-7059 Bajaj Pulsar, as the vehicle was subjected to theft during the period in which the policy was existed admittedly. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to the reliefs and complaint is to be allowed.

            In the result, complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to pay the assured amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) to the complainant along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of letter of intimation i.e. 04.06.012, till realization and also opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and the opposite party also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. The opposite party further directed to comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of coy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of order, till realization.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 2^nd day of May, 2016.           

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                                                                                                              

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant.

 

PW-1: S. Sridhar @ S.K. Sridhar (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Party.

 

RW-1: Smt. M.Bhanumathi (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANTS

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of First Information Report. Dt: 30.05.2012.
	Original copy of Final Report issued by the East Police Station.
	Photo copy of APTD Certificate of Registration (:RC) of the complainant.
	Photo copy of policy of the complainant’s vehicle bearing policy No. 051200/31/11/01/00004534.
	Original copy of Notice issued by the East Police Station in favour of the complainant (Form No.96). Dt: 12.02.2014.
	Office copy of the legal notice issued by the complainant along with postal receipts. Dt: 23.02.2015.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

Exhibits   (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
1.	Photo copy of Insurance policy issued to the vehicle bearing Registration No. AP-03-AP-7059 filed by the Opposite Party. Dt: 02.10.2011.
2.	Photo copy of Letter submitted by the complainant to the opposite party filed on behalf of the Opposite Party.  Dt: 04.06.2012.
3.	True copy of Letter submitted by the complainant to the Opposite Party  filed on behalf of the Opposite Party. Dt: 15.06.2012
4.	True copy of Final letter addressed to the complainant filed on behalf of the Opposite Party. Dt: 18.07.2012.
5.	True copy of Final letter sent by the complainant by the Opposite Party filed on behalf of the Opposite Party. Dt: 10.09.2012.
6.	True copy of Final letter addressed to the complainant filed on behalf of the Opposite Party. Dt: 23.11.2012.
7.	True copy of Valuation Certificate issued by the independent valuer/ surveyor to the opposite party.

 

 

                                                                                                                       Sd/-                   

                                                                                                               President

         

            // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

              Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

          

           

 

 Copies to:-    1. The complainant.

                       2. The opposite party.