Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 to direct the Opposite party for insurance claim of Rs.3,59,824/- with interest at 12% p.a. with cost. 2. The brief facts of the complaint are thus; The complainant and her 3 sons availed loan from the Corporation Bank, Pandavapura and purchased Mahendra Tractor and Trailer bearing No.KA.11-T-4895 and KA.11-T-4896 and said vehicles were registered in the name of the complainant and insured with the Opposite parties insurance company for Rs.3,32,291/- for the tractor and Rs.90,000/- for the trailer and the policy as valid from 22.02.2005 to 21.02.2006. Again for the period of 22.02.2006 to 21.02.2007, the said vehicles were insured for Rs.2,79,824/- and Rs.80,000/- respectively by paying the premium. The said tractor and trailer had been parked near cane crusher of his relative H.J.Shivanna on 15.05.2006 and on the next morning he found that tractor and trailer were missing and the son of the complainant searched many places and complaint was filed before the Rural Police Station, Mandya about the theft of the vehicle. The police investigated and did not trace the vehicle and they have filed C-report to the Court. Thereafter the complainant, obtaining the copy of the complaint and FIR and C-report, furnished to 1st Opposite party claiming the insurance amount and the 1st Opposite party asked the complainant to produce RC, Original Policy, Tractor Key and D.L. of son of the complainant and accordingly the relevant documents with affidavit and letter of the Corporation Bank were furnished. Again the Opposite parties requested the complainant to furnish form no.28, 29, 30 and sale receipt, delivery note, authorization letter, clearance certificate and transfer of ownership of the policy and on production of the documents, the Opposite party obtained the signature of the complainant to some blank papers and also took the indemnity bond and subrogation bond on 31.08.2007. After receipt of the above documents after lapse of few days, the 1st Opposite party directed the complainant to approach 2nd Opposite party at Mysore, on the ground that the records have been sent to the said office. Then the complainant approached 2nd Opposite party and claimed insurance amount. The 2nd Opposite party directed the complainant to furnish RC extract and accordingly the complainant has obtained same from the RTO and submitted. In spite of furnishing all the documents, the Opposite parties have not at all settled the claim so far and dodging the same by one or other pretext and caused mental agony to the complainant and finally 2nd Opposite party stated that they have no jurisdiction to settle the matter and to approach the Regional Manager, Bangalore. It is the duty of the Opposite parties to settle the claim after collecting all the records and Opposite parties have failed to provide service required under law and showing dereliction of duty, have committed deficiency in service. Hence, legal notice dated 16.02.2008 was issued to settle the claim, but they have not settled the matter, but sent untenable reply. Hence, the present complaint is filed. 3. The 1st & 2nd Opposite parties have filed common version admitting that the complainant is the owner of tractor and trailer and the insurance of the said vehicles with the Opposite party insurance company and the validity of the policy as on the date of theft. The Opposite parties have pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable. The liability of the Opposite parties as per the terms and conditions of the policy and rules laid down in the company. Further, after receipt of the records, they sent to the Regional Office, Bangalore for needful action and the Regional Office sent back the records on 22.01.2008 to collect all the relevant details from the bank and then 2nd Opposite party collected the bank account details and the same were sent to the Regional Office for further needful action. Thereafter, on 20.02.2008 letter from the Regional Office was issued stating that there is doubting the genuinity of theft, hence refer the matter to the National Crime Bureau to re-investigate the theft in question. So, the 2nd Opposite party gave requisition on 04.03.2008 to the Superintendent of Police, C.O.D Office, Mandya to re-investigate the case and another reminder was sent on 22.04.2008. In the meanwhile, the complainant issued legal notice on 16.02.2008. The Opposite parties gave a suitable reply stating that after obtaining the report from the COD, necessary steps will be taken in the matter. In spite of it, the complainant has filed complaint alleging false things. There is no repudiation of claim and the claim is under investigation and the claim process is going on and hence complaint is premature one and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost. 4. During trail, the Complainant P.A. Holder is examined CW.1 and Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.11 are marked on behalf of the Opposite parties. 1st Opposite party is examined and Ex.R.1 to R.11 are marked. 5. We have heard both sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1) Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not settling the claim of the complainant? 2) What order? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. POINTS No.1 & 2:- The undisputed facts are that, the complainant is the owner of the tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA-11-T-4895 and KA-11-T-4896 and the same is insured with the Opposite party and policy was in force as on the date of alleged theft. The documents proved that the complainant along with her 3 sons availed loan from the Corporation Bank, Pandavapura to purchase the tractor and trailer and the said vehicles were hypothecated to the bank. It is an admitted fact that the complainant informed the Opposite party about the theft of the tractor and trailer by giving letter as per Ex.C.3 on 19.05.2006 and on the same day the Opposite party furnished the claim form as per Ex.C.4 and submitted on the same day to the Opposite party along with R.C. book. The records revealed that about the theft, the complainant son lodged a complaint to the jurisdiction of police in Crime No.190/06 under section 379 of IPC on 17.05.2006 and the date of theft is night of 15.05.2006. The records also revealed that as per the direction of the Opposite party, the complainant furnished the documents on 31.08.2007 along with the list as per Ex.C.10. 9. The grievance of the complainant is that in spite of furnishing all these documents particularly the C-report submitted by the Police to the Court about the theft of the vehicle, the Opposite party did not settle the claim and hence committed deficiency in service. The contention of the Opposite party is that because of the late production of the documents by the complainant and taking steps for investigation from the police, the claim was in process and though it was informed to the complainant in reply to the legal notice, the present complaint is filed and hence there is no deficiency in service and since the claim is not repudiated, the complaint is not maintainable. 10. Of course, the Opposite party has not repudiated the claim, but it is established law that undue delay in settling the claim amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, we have to consider whether the Opposite party has committed undue delay in settling the claim. 11. As observed above, the theft of the vehicle was informed to the Opposite party by giving petition with copy of FIR on 19.05.2006 and the claim form was issued to the complainant and on the same day the complainant submitted the claim form as per Ex.C.4 along with the R.C. of the vehicle, mentioning the insurance policy number. The complainant as per the oral direction of the Opposite party submitted the documents required through a letter Ex.C.10 on 31.08.2007. Before that, the Opposite party has appointed a surveyor to investigate about the theft and the surveyor submitted the investigation report dated 05.12.2006 as per Ex.R.9. The investigator has visited the village and enquired the persons including the complainant and her sons and the investigator came to the opinion that tractor and trailer were stolen on the night of 15.05.2006. Though, the police have submitted C-report to the court and complainant furnished the same to the Opposite party on 31.08.2007. Though the opposite party contended that they have to act according to the guidelines of the company and Regional Office and for the same, it has taken some time and the claim was under process, it appears that 2nd Opposite party has written letter to the Regional Office at Bangalore on 27.12.2007 about the present claim and that letter is not forthcoming, but Ex.R.10 letter from the Regional Office is produced and that letter is dated 20.02.2008. In this letter, it is stated that you may refer the matter to NCRB for further investigation, if you are not satisfied with the authenticity of the claim. Though on 08.12.2006, the investigator submitted the report about the theft of the vehicle after investigation and inspite of the complainant furnishing the police C-Report with other documents required on 31.08.2007 to the 1st Opposite party, the 1st & 2nd Opposite parties have taken 4 months time to write a letter to the Regional Office, it is not the case that it is the Regional Office which has to take decision about the claim, only 2nd Opposite party has to take decision about the claim. It can be presumed that 1st & 2nd Opposite parties suspected the theft of the vehicle in spite of the final report of the police accepted by the court and gave a petition as per Ex.R.2 to the Superintendent of Police, Mandy District, Mandya to re-investigate the case on 04.03.2008 and another reminder dated 22.04.2008. Though, there is no COD Office at Mandya they have sent the letter Ex.R.2 & R3. What is the basis for seeking the re-investigation of the theft of the tractor and trailer is not at all mentioned in Ex.R.2 & R.3, when the Investigation Officer appointed by the Opposite party has submitted the report opining that theft of tractor and trailer has taken place. There was no reason at all for 2nd Opposite party to suspect the theft of the tractor and trailer reported by the complainant. It reveals that only after legal notice of the complainant dated 16.02.2008, the 2nd Opposite party has made up point to give a petition to the Superintendent of Police, COD at Mandya on 04.03.2008. In order to show that they have taken steps to settle the claim. It shows that only to drag on the claim of the complainant, this step has been taken by the 2nd Opposite party. Further, it is contended that the complainant did not submit all the required documents about the bank loan. CW.1 the son of the complainant has admitted in his evidence that when he furnished the police report to 1st Opposite party, he was asked to produce the pass book of the loan and account extract, but he has deposed when they approached the bank, they informed that already the insurance company has obtained it. Of course, as per Ex.R.1 the Bangalore Regional Office has asked the 2nd Opposite party to collect Bank documents as the loan account in the name of H.D.Ramu and not in the name of insured. On 30.01.2008, 2nd Opposite party has sought for the details of the loan and the Corporation Bank by its letter dated 01.02.2008 as per Ex.R.6 furnished the particulars that is the names of the borrowers and loan account of the tractor and trailer as per Ex.R.7. It discloses that the complainant along with her 3 sons jointly borrowed the loan to purchase the tractor and trailer and same were hypothecated to the Bank, but the vehicles were registered in the name of the complainant. According to the Opposite party, they received the Police report as per Ex.R.11 on 09.06.2008 and though the report confirmed the theft of the tractor and trailer and hence there is no delay and the claim is under process. But, as observed above, there was no reason for 2nd Opposite party to suspect the claim when there is police C-report in addition to the report of the investigator appointed by the Opposite party and they have taken months together to correspond to action from step to step, for the reasons best known to them. The present complaint is filed on 27.03.2008 and the complainant waited for months together for settlement of the claim, but the Opposite party went on dodging the claim seeking the documents from time to time without obtaining the documents at one time and therefore it cannot be said that delay in settling the claim is bonafide and it cannot be said that the delay was due to the non-submitting the documents by the complainant. The carelessness of the Opposite parties is established because the complainant submitted the letter of the bank dated 25.08.2007 on 31.08.2007 and 1st & 2nd Opposite parties did not apply their mind, what is required, but it is the Regional Office as per Ex.R.1 dated 22.01.2008 informed that the loan account is in the name of the H.D.Ramu and not in the name of the insured and so to collect the details from the bank. Nothing prevented the 1st & 2nd Opposite parties to collect the same information from the bank after 31.08.2008 after perusing the letter of the bank dated 25.08.2007. The Opposite party has not produced that letter at all before the Forum. Though theft has taken place on the night of 15.05.2006 and the matter was reported to the Opposite party and in spite of availability of all the documents to settle the claim, the Opposite party has dodged the matter for one or other reason and therefore, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. Therefore, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative. 12. The complainant has sought for awarding of Rs.3,59,824/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of receipt of the claim with cost of Rs.10,000/-. But as per the insurance certificate as per Ex.R.8 the value of the tractor is shown as Rs.2,79,824/-, trailer value is shown as Rs.80,000/- totally Rs.3,59,824/-. Admittedly, the vehicles were hypothecated to the Corporation Bank, Pandavapura and the loan up to date has to be cleared and the hypothecation has to be cancelled collecting documents of vehicle from the bank and in case of tracing of the vehicle, the Opposite party has to produce the documents to claim the vehicle. Though the complainant has sought for interest from the date of receipt of the claim, but the complainant has furnished all the documents on 31.08.2007 and in the circumstances of the case the Opposite party requires at least 5 months time to get the reports and settle claim after making correspondence with their superior officers and therefore the complainant is entitled to interest from the date of complaint. 13. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is allowed awarding insurance claim of Rs.3,59,824/- with interest at 7% p.a. from the date of complaint with cost of Rs.1,000/- and the Opposite parties are directed to settle the claim within two months by paying the tractor loan due to the Bank and to pay the balance to the complainant. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 07th day of July 2008). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
