COMPLAINT FILED:14-07-2009 <br /> DISPOSED ON: 13-10-2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 13TH OCTOBER 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1552/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Ms.Thresia Eldo,<br /> W/o.Eldo,<br /> Aged about 50 Years,<br /> Residing at No.282/91,<br /> Motappa Playa 2nd Stage,<br /> Indiranagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 038.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.C.V.Georgekutty<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,<br /> Divisional Office No.9,<br /> G.15, Tech Park Mall, ITPL,<br /> Whitefield Road, <br /> Bangalore – 560 066.<br /> Rep.by its Divisional Manager<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.Janardhan Reddy<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> The complainant filed the complaint u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act of 1986 seeking direction to Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) to pay and reimburse the complainant with the cost of the vehicle parts replaced to the extent of Rs.31,495/- and to pay damages to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and anguish caused to the complainant on an allegations of deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:-<br /> <br /> 2. She is the registered owner of the Maruthi Van bearing Registered No.KA-03-MF-1796, the same was insured with the OP and the insurance policy covered all the risks including the theft. The complainant parked her vehicle in the hind portion of her house by taking safety measures covering the vehicle with Tarpaulin and under lock and key. While the vehicle was parked, that on 20-07-2007 it was noticed miscreants had stolen some parts such as Ignition Coil, Igniter Assy., Controller, Assy. Wring Harness and other parts. Immediately she lodged the complaint before the jurisdictional police on 21-07-2007 she approached OP appraised about the incident. OP authorized the complainant to get the stolen parts to replaced with authorized dealer and to submit the bill. Accordingly, she got the parts replaced with the authorized dealer and the bill was produced before the OP. OP demanded to produce the report from the police station and the complainant received the report on 08-01-2008. After production of the report OP did not accede to the demand made by the complainant and ultimately on 31-01-2008 the complainant issued legal notice demanding to settle the claim for which OP had sent untenable reply. The refusal of OP in accepting the demand tantamount to deficiency of the service and the OP may be directed to make good of the cost of the parts replaced along with the damages to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- caused due to mental agony as well as anguish. Hence, the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. OP after appearance filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable, as the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands. It is admitted that the policy in favour of the complainant in respect of her Maruthi Van issued and the same was valid from the 25-03-2007 to 24-03-2008 and their liability if any is subjected to the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant parked her vehicle in unknown place without protection nor without proper steps to safe guard the vehicle. The vehicle was parked in a public place and on the night of 20-07-2007 somebody committed theft the parts of the vehicle due to the negligence on the part of the complainant only. The complainant has violated the terms and conditions and clause 4 of the policy. There is no deficiency of service rendered by the OP, they have acted strictly in terms of the contract of insurance in repudiating the claim as per the clause 4 of the terms of the policy. The complainant is not entitled to receive either sum of Rs.31,495/- towards damages and Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint. <br /> <br /> 4. The complainant along with complaint produced documents. OP produced copy of the policy. <br /> <br /> 5. The complainant filed affidavit to substantiate the complaint allegations and filed written arguments. The administrative official of the OP filed affidavit in support of the defence version and filed written arguments. <br /> 6. After perusing the pleadings, the documents produced, affidavits filed by both the parties and the written arguments submitted and on hearing both the sides the following points arise for our consideration :-<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 7. Our findings on :-<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N <br /> <br /> 8. At the out set it is not in dispute that the complainant being the registered owner of the vehicle Maruthi Van bearing registered No:KA-03-MF-1796 insured the same with the OP covering all the risks including theft for the period 25-03-2007 to 24-03-2008. While the said vehicle was parked in the hind portion of her house in the night of 20-07-2007 some miscreants committed theft of parts of the vehicle and the same was noticed on the next day. The complainant filed complaint with jurisdictional police. She claims that she approached the OP and appraised about the incident and as OP permitted her to get the missing parts of the vehicle replaced with the authorized dealer. She got it replaced and produced the bill towards the cost of the missing parts of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.31,495/-. <br /> <br /> 9. OP repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy particularly clause 4 which provides the safety measures to be taken regarding vehicle. Clause 4 of the policy reads as under:-<br /> <br /> “The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safe guard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured in the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk.”<br /> <br /> <br /> 10. It is contended by the OP that since the vehicle was parked in a public place of the hind portion of the house of the complainant without any safety measures. Hence the complainant violated clause 4 of the policy as such OP is justified in repudiating the claim. <br /> <br /> 11. In our view from the sworn affidavit filed by the complainant it is crystal clear that she has parked her vehicle in the hind portion of her residence covered with the Tarpaulin and under lock and key. There is no reason to disbelieve her version regarding the fact of the vehicle being covered with the Tarpaulin and under lock and key. The safety measure which ordinary owner of the vehicle was required to take is being taken by the complainant. Therefore it cannot be said that the vehicle was parked in some public place without taking any safety measures. Under these circumstances we are of the view that there is no merit in the contention of the OP that the complainant has violated clause 4 of the terms and condition of the policy. The copy of the FIR and final report produced by the complainant reveals that after the complainant lodged the complaint regarding theft of parts of the vehicle, the jurisdictional police registered case under crime No.258/2007 for the offence punishable under Sec.379 IPC and the police could not be trace the culprits and recover the property as such final report is filed.<br /> <br /> 12. Thus we are satisfied that the spare parts of the vehicle parked were committed theft by some miscreants. The bill produced by the complainant for having replaced the missing parts of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.31,495/- from the authorized dealer is as per the instructions of the OP when the complainant approached and appraised about the incident to the OP. Viewed from any angle we are of the view that OP was not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant, as such the repudiation without any justifiable cause amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Therefore the complainant is entitled for reimbursement of the cost of the spare parts replaced to the tune of Rs.31,495/-.<br /> <br /> 13. The complainant has claimed compensation to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony and anguish. Final report regarding crime being undetected was filed by the police on 08-01-2008 and the same was produced before the OP. The bill was also produced by the complainant claiming the amount. The complainant issued notice dated 31-01-2008 to settle the amount towards the purchase of the spare parts for which OP got issued reply notice dated 08-02-2008 repudiating the claim on the ground that the complainant is violated clause 4 of the terms and conditions of the policy. The repudiation of the claim on the part of the OP was without any justifiable cause; thereby the complainant was made to knock the doors of this Forum. The complainant is put to mental agony and anguish on account of the hostile attitude of the OP as such we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for compensation to the extent of Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and anguish. Further the complainant is also entitled for interest on the claim amount at the rate at 12% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e., from 08-02-2008 the date of which the reply was sent to the complainant, till the date of realization. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following :-<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part. <br /> <br /> OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.31,495/- to the complainant towards cost of the replaced parts of the vehicle with interest at 12% p.a. from 08-02-2008 from the date of repudiation of the claim till the date of realization with compensation of Rs.2,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,00/- within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 13th day of October 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> NRS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />