IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 22ndday of March, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 161/2020 (Filed on 12/10/2020)
Petitioner : Rajan Antony,
S/o. Antony,
Puthanpurackal House,
Palampra P.O.
Kanjirappally, Kottayam.
(Adv. K. Ubaideth)
Vs.
Opposite parties : National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Kottayam
Rep. by Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office,
CSI Square, Baker Junction,
Kottayam.
(Adv. Agi Joseph)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The nutshell of the complaint is as follows:
The complainant who is a tapper by profession and was theregistered owner of Hero Honda Super Splender bike bearingRegKL-34A-7957. The vehicle was validly insured with theopposite party on 21-3-2019 vide policy number390010231186203221674. On 13-11-2019 when thecomplainant kept the vehicle in the shed at rubber estate wasstolen by someone. Soon after the incident, an FIR wasregistered with kanjirappally police station as crime no. 1459 of2019. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite partyfor getting the insured value of the bike. The surveyor of theopposite party assessed the value of the vehicle as Rs.15721/and the complainant agreed for the same. Though the complainantproduced all the documents which are demanded by theoppositeparty, on 17-9-2020 complainant received a repudiation letterfrom the opposite party stating some lame excuses. Accordingto the complainant the act of the opposite party amounts todeficiency in service and he is entitled to get Rs.15721/-along with compensation and cost. Hence the complaint.
On receiving notice the opposite party appeared before thecommission and filed the version as follows:
Complaint is not maintainable. The vehicle had lost due to thenegligence of the complainant, the key of the vehicle was keptin the vehicle which help the thief for taking the vehiclewithout any obstruction. As per the terms and conditions of thepolicy the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safe guard
the vehicle from loss or damages. In this case the insured hasfailed to takesuch precaution. Hence the negligence of thecomplainant is a violation of the policy condition. The oppositeparty has not agreed to pay any amount towards the insuranceclaim for the loss of the vehicle. There is no negligence ordeficiency in-service on the part of the opposite party.
In order to substantiate his case the complainant has filed proofaffidavit in lieu of chief examination and exhibits A1 to A4 weregot marked. Administrative officer of the opposite party filedproof affidavit and B1 and B2 were marked.
On an evaluation of complaint version and evidence on recordswe would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service form the part of the opposite party?
- Reliefs and costs.
Point number 1 and 2
For the sake of convenience we would like to consider the pointnumber 1 and 2 together.
The complainant had availed the service of the opposite partyby insuring his vehicle bearing registration number KL 34-A7957 with opposite party wide Exhibit A2 . Exhibit A2 is thepolicy along with the policy terms and conditions. On perusal ofexhibit A2 and B1 we can see that the period of insurance was21-3-2019 to 20-3-2020 and sum assured was Rs.15821/-
According to the complainant on 13-11-2019 while the bike waskept in the shed which situates in the rubber estate at Koovapplythe vehicle was stolen. Exhibit A3 is the first informationreport lodged by the Kanjirappally Police station authorities on13-11-2019 in connection with the theft of the vehicle. It isproved by the Exhibit A3 that a crime was registered as crime no. 1459/2019 under Section 379 of the IPC by the police authorities ofKanjirappally police station. On the other hand the counsel forthe opposite party vehemently argued that thecomplainant hasfailed to take all reasonable steps to safe guard the vehicle fromloss or damages.
Opposite party repudiated the claim of the vehicle vide exhibitA4 letter stating that the key of the vehicle was kept inside theshed where the vehicle was kept in a very careless manner andwas left unattended and not under the safe custody of insured.
It is true that as per policy terms and conditions the insuredshall take all reasonable steps to safe guard the vehicle formany loss or damages. Here in case in hand it is admitted thatthe vehicle was parked in the nearby workers shed in theestate and the complainant went to his job. In exhibit A4 it issated that the key of the vehicle was kept inside the said shed.
Even though the opposite party contended that the key of thevehicle was kept in the side in a careless manner they did notstated how the key was kept in the shed. Without adducingcogent evidence we cannot accept the contention of the oppositeparty that the key has been kept in a careless manner in theshed.
Opposite party has no case that the motor vehicle of thecomplainant has not been stolen and there is no delay in lodgingcomplaint with police authorities in connection with allegedtheft. The opposite party has no case that the complainant hasnot intimated about the theft of the vehicle before the opposite
party within in a reasonable time and had not submitted properdocuments for the purpose of the claim. Though the complainantaverred that the surveyor of the opposite party agreed to pay Rs.15721, opposite party has no case that they had not deputedsurveyor to assess the loss of the complainant.
In the light of above discussed evidence we are of the opinionthat the opposite party has committed deficiency in service bynon-settling the claim of the complainant in time. No doubt, thecomplainant had suffered much sufferings and loss due to theact of deficiency by the opposite party.
In these circumstance we allow the complaint pass the followingorder.
- We hereby direct the opposite party to pay Rs.15,721/-to the complainant as the Insured declared Value of the vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL34A 7957.
- We hereby direct the opposite party Rs.10,000/- to thecomplainant as compensation for mental agony caused due to theact of deficiency by the opposite party.
Order shall be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Order. If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 9% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 22nd day of March, 2022
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of RC book (KL-34-A-7957
A2- Copy of policy
A3 – Copy of FIR dtd.13-11-19 from Kanjirappally police station
A4 – Copy of letter dtd.17-09-2020
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 –Copy of Two wheeler certificate cum policy schedule
B2 – Copy of letter dtd.17-09-20 issued by opposite party to petitioner
By Order
Assistant Registrar
