Complainant through Adv. Maheshwari
Opponents through Adv. Jogwadikar
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--
Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President Place : PUNE
// J U D G M E N T //
(13/06/2013)
This complaint is filed by the consumer against the insurance company for deficiency in service under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts are as follows,
1] The complainant had purchased D. G. Set machine for Rs. 2,62,931/-. That was insured with the opponent for the period of 25/09/2008 to 24/09/2009. On 17/01/2009, the said machine was employed for the work near Kudale Patil Building, Vadgaon Budruk, Pune. After the work was over, the machine was kept along with the trailer at the same place. On the next day i.e. on 18/1/2009 when workers came to start the work, they have noticed that the machine and the trailer were not at the place. They took search in the vicinity but could not find it, hence informed this fact to the Supervisor, Mr. Rajesh Suryawanshi. Mr. Suryawanshi informed the fact to Abhiruchi Police Station about the theft of machine, but the police did not register the crime immediately and advised to search the machine in the vicinity and make enquiry with the neighbours. Mr. Suryawanshi came back and made enquiry with the neighbours and searched the machine, but the machine was not found, hence he lodged FIR in the police station on 3/2/2009. The complainant has also intimated about the theft of the machine to the opponent on 20/1/2009. The opponent had appointed investigator even though the case of the theft of the machine was genuine. The opponent has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant, that amounts to deficiency in service, hence complainant has claimed price of the machine Rs. 2,62,931/- along with interest @ 18% p.a., compensation for the mental agony to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- and cost of the proceeding.
2] The opponent appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim of the complainant by filing written version. It has denied the contents of the complaint in toto. According to the opponent, there was no deficiency in service. As the dates mentioned in the claim letter were wrong, they repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant has not intimated the fact as regards the theft to police as well as the opponent immediately. The complainant has committed breach of conditions of the policy and he was negligent in protecting the machine. The opponent has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
3] After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, which is produced before this Forum, hearing the arguments, as well as perusing written arguments of both the parties and considering pleadings, the following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1. | Whether complainant has proved that the opponent has caused deficiency in service by repudiating his claim illegally? | In the negative |
2. | Whether complainant is entitled for compensation? | In the negative |
3. | What order? | Complaint is dismissed |
REASONS :-
4] The admitted fact in the present proceeding is that the complainant has purchased D. G. Set, which was insured with the opponent for the period 25/09/2008 to 24/09/2009. It is also alleged by the complainant that the said machine was stolen. In order to substantiate this fact, the complainant has strongly relied upon copy of the FIR submitted before J.M.F.C. Court No.7, which is registered in Haveli Police Station. It reveals from the same that the complainant has lodged FIR as regards theft of the machine on 3/2/2009. It is significant to note that, it reveals from the contents of the FIR that theft has been committed during night between 1/2/2009 and 2/2/2009. As per the contents of the present complaint, which is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the alleged theft was committed in between 17/1/2009 and 18/1/2009. It appears from that there is discrepancy in the pleadings and documents and FIR is prepared in order to bring on record that it was lodged promptly. It is significant to note that, the complainant has not explained properly the delay in lodging FIR. In fact, it is very difficult to accept on the basis of the documents, as to whether theft committed in between 17/1/2009 to 18/1/2009 or in between 1/2/2009 to 2/2/2009. It reveals from the letter sent by the opponent to the complainant dtd. 15/1/2010 that, the opponent has rightly intimated to the complainant the reason of repudiation of the claim. There are two reasons for repudiation of the claim. Firstly, there was discrepancy in the date of commission of theft and secondly, there is discrepancy in the engine number of the D. G. Set. Second discrepancy as regards number of engine is rectified by the complainant by informing that, there was typing mistake in referring the number. But the first discrepancy is not at all rectified by the complainant. In such circumstances, it is very difficult to accept that the opponent has caused deficiency in service by repudiating the claim of the complainant illegally.
Learned Advocate for the complainant has argued before me that the FIR cannot be considered as encyclopedia of all events and detailed narration of episode is not expected. Purpose of FIR is to set criminal law in motion. He has placed reliance on the ruling of “B. Shantilal & Co. V/S New India Assurance Co. Ltd.” Reported in III (2011) CPJ 468 (NC). It reveals from the facts of the said proceeding that, claim was repudiated as detail events were not referred in the FIR. It appears from the facts of the present proceeding that there is discrepancy as regards the dates of the theft and i.e. glaring discrepancy. The facts of the Ruling cited by the Advocate of the complainant and that of the present proceeding are not identical. Hence the ruling on which the complainant is relying upon is not helpful to adjudicate the dispute before this Forum.
Second Ruling on which the complainant has placed reliance upon is “National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/S Neeraj” reported in I (2011) CPJ 341. In that proceeding also there was delay in lodging FIR and difference in the dates of theft. It appears from the facts of the present proceeding that the complainant has not explained anywhere, as to why he had mentioned two different dates, one in the FIR and another in the claim application before the Insurance Company. Facts in the Ruling cited by the complainant are not identical and hence it is not helpful to adjudicate dispute between the parties. In such circumstances, I held that the opponent has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.
As regards the delay for filing the claim before Insurance Company, the reliance can be placed upon “Devendra Singh V/S New India Assurance Co. Ltd.” reported in III (2003) CPJ 77 (NC). It reveals from the facts of the Ruling that there was delay of 4 days for reporting theft to concerned police station and in that circumstances claim was rejected by the Insurance Company and that rejection of the Insurance Company was upheld by Hon’ble State Commission as well as by Hon’ble National Commission. In the present proceeding there is substantial delay in lodging FIR as well as intimating the fact of theft to the opponent. Complainant has committed breach of condition of policy. The opponent has lost opportunity to search the stolen and insured article. The rights of the opponent are seriously prejudiced. Hence, I held that the opponent has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant and he is not entitled for compensation and cost of the proceedings. In the result, I answer the points accordingly and pass the following order,
** ORDER **
1. Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear
their own costs.
2. Copies of this order be furnished to
the parties free of cost.
