BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 08/10/2010
Date of Order : 30/11/2011
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 532/2010
Between
Eapen George, | :: | Complainant |
Veliyamkunnath Hjouse, Keezhillam Post, Rayamangalam, Perumbvaoor.l |
| (Party-in-person) |
And
National Insurance Co. Ltd., | :: | Opposite party |
Perumbavoor B.O., 2nd Floor, Mullappally Building, A.M. Road, Perumbavoor – 683 542. |
| (By Deepu. K.V., Advocate, N. Paravur) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The case of the complainant is as follows :
The complainant was the registered owner of Scorpio car bearing Registration No. KL-40/8428. The vehicle was insured with the opposite party for the period from 30-03-2007 to 29-03-2008 with an insured declared value of Rs. 6 lakhs. The facts while so, the vehicle was stolen from the house of the complainant during the early hours of 13-09-2007. The complainant duly intimated the same to Kuruppampady Police Station and on 15-09-2007, the police registered Crime No. 535/2007. The complainant submitted insurance claim before the opposite party on 20-09-2007, but the same was repudiated by the opposite party vide letter dated 12-08-2009. Later, the claim of the complainant was approved and the same was paid to him on 25-02-2010. In the mean time, the complainant approached the Insurance Ombudsman, but to no avail. The complainant is entitled to get a total sum of Rs. 5,58,746/- from the opposite party on various heads. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the opposite party :
The opposite party admits the issuance of the policy. This complaint is filed after receiving the amount covered under the policy. As per the policy, the complainant ought to have taken reasonable precaution to safeguard the vehicle. The complainant hand over the duplicate key of the vehicle only on 09-11-2009. Thereafter, the claim of the complainant was reopened and paid. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A13 were marked on his side. No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite party. Exts. B1 to B10 were marked on their side. Heard the complainant who appeared in person and the counsel for the opposite party.
4. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 5,58,746/- from the opposite party?
5. The following points were not disputed by the parties :-
The complainant's vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-40/8428 was insured with the opposite party for the period from 30-03-2007 to 29-03-2008 and the sum insured was Rs. 6 lakhs evidenced by Ext. B2 policy.
During the currency of the policy, the vehicle was stolen from the premises of the complainant on 15-09-2007.
The claim of the complainant was rejected by the opposite party by Ext. B3 letter dated 12-08-2009 stating that “there was a breach of policy condition No. 4 of Private Car Package Policy”.
The complainant managed to collect the spare key of the vehicle from the financier on 03-06-2008.
The same was handed over to the opposite party on 09-11-2009 evident from Ext. B4.
On 09-11-2009, the complainant caused Ext. B4 letter to the opposite party to reconsider the claim application of the complainant.
Thereafter, the complainant approached the Hon'ble Insurance Ombudsman to get his grievances redressed.
During the pendency of the above petition, the opposite party disbursed the insured declared value to the complainant on 25-02-2010.
The Hon'ble Ombudsman vide Ext. B7 order dated 09-03-2010 dismissed the above petition.
6. Since, the delay in processing the claim application has been caused due to the laches and negligence on the part of the complainant, we are at a loss to consider the reliefs sought for in this complaint positively.
7. In the result, we are only to hold that the finding of the Hon'ble Insurance Ombudsman is well founded which the complainant has even opted not to controvert. For reasons stated above upholding the decision of the Hon'ble Insurance Ombudsman, we are closing the proceedings in this complaint.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of November 2011.
Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By order,
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Copy of the claim intimation letter issued to the op.pty |
“ A2 | :: | Copy of the deposition of the complainant's wife |
“ A3 | :: | Copy of the deposition of the complainant |
“ A4 | :: | Copy of the letter dt. 08-01-2009 |
“ A5 | :: | Copy of the form of application for seeking information under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 |
“ A6 | :: | Copy of the letter dt. 30-12-2009 |
“ A7 | :: | Copy of the letter dt. 19-08-2008 |
“ A8 | :: | Copy of the letter dt. 21-10-2009 |
“ A9 | :: | Copy of the form of application for seeking information under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 |
“ A10 | :: | Copy of the letter dt. 18-01-2010 |
“ A11 | :: | Copy of the form of application for seeking information under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 |
“ A12 | :: | Copy of the format for claims referred issued from the op.pty |
“ A13 | :: | Tourist Taxi receipts (13 Nos.) |
Opposite party's Exhibits :-
Exhibit B1 | :: | A letter dt. 20-09-2007 |
“ B2 | :: | Policy schedule |
“ B3 | :: | A letter dt. 12-08-2009 |
“ B4 | :: | A letter dt. 09-11-2009 |
“ B5 | :: | A letter dt. 03-06-2008 |
“ B6 | :: | Investigation report |
“ B7 | :: | Copy of the proceedings of the Insurance Ombudsman, Kochi dt. 09-03-2010 |
“ B8 | :: | Copy of the letter dt. 09-03-2010 |
“ B9 | :: | Copy of the letter dt. 04-03-2010 |
“ B10 | :: | Copy of the note to Regional Claims Committee for reopening the claim file for grievance redressal claim dt. 10-02-2010 |
Depositions :- |
|
|
PW1 | :: | Eapen George – complainant. |
=========
