Date of Filing:30.04.2014
Date of Order:03.06.2016
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 27.
Dated: 3rd DAY OF JUNE 2016
PRESENT
SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, B.SC., B.Ed.,LL.B.,PRESIDENT
SRI.H.JANARDHAN,B.A.L, LL.B., MEMBER
SMT.BHARATI.B.VIBHUTE, B.E(I.P.) LL.B., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.786/2014
Sri Rayappa,
S/o Late Mariyappa,
Aged about 51 years,
No.321, 13th Cross,
Pipe line Road,
Sunkadakatte,
Muthuraya Swamy Layout,
Bangalore-560 091. Complainant
V/s
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Service Centre, 4th Floor,
Leo Shopping Complex,
44-45, Residency Road,
Bangalore-560 025.
Rep. by its General Manager. Opposite Party
ORDER
BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT
1. This is the complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred in short as O.P) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and prays for direction to the O.P to pay Rs.53,900/- towards assessed at the time of issuance of the motor insurance policy for the loss/theft of the two wheeler vehicle along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 13/11/2012 and further prays for the direction to O.P. to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and to pay cost of the proceedings.
2. The brief facts of complaint is that, the complainant insured his two wheeler vehicle i.e. Bajaj Pulsar bearing Reg.No. KA-41 R-7740 with the O.P on 7.11.2012, the said two wheeler was stolen out and thereby complainant lodged the complaint with the jurisdictional police. Thereafter, the case was registered under Section 379 of IPC and the complainant advised by the police to intimate his insurer about the theft of the vehicle. Hence the complainant approached his insurance agent and he asked him to give intimation to the main branch, when he went to the main branch by the time the business hours of the main branch was closed. When the complainant went to main branch on 10.11.2012 and again office was closed on account of Second Saturday also on 11.11.2012 and 12.11.2012 was also closed due to falling of Sunday as well as general holiday of Diwali festival. Hence complainant was not able to give loss intimation letter uptil 13.11.2012 to claim damages in respect of loss of his vehicle. Even though the O.P verified and confirmed that the vehicle in question and offender was not traced out and hence the police filed the C Report to the Hon’ble Court of 5th ACMM, Bangalore. Finally, the O.P repudiated the claim made by the complainant on the ground the complainant has not intimated well within the 48 hours of the occurrence of theft of the vehicle. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon issuance of notice, and O.P appeared through their counsel and filed its version. In the version of O.P contended that complainant has not approached the forum with clean hands by suppressing the material facts. It is admitted that O.P has issued a insurance policy for the period from 13.10.2012 to 12.10.2013 in respect of Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle belongs to the complainant. The O.P contended that, the complainant made a claim with the O.P. intimating that motor cycle was stolen on 7.11.2012 on the said complainant was made long after the theft had taken place. Also contended that as per the conditions of the policy notice shall be given to the insurance company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident, or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. Hence O.P contended that, the complainant did not intimate the insurance company within 48 hours regarding the theft of the vehicle and thereon repudiated the claim. On other grounds O.P prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. To substantiate the above case, the complainant as well as O.P. have filed the affidavit evidence along with documents. We have heard the arguments.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following points will arise for our considerations are:-
(A) Whether the complainant has proved
deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?
(B) Whether the complainant is entitled to the
relief prayed for in the complaint?
(C) What order?
6. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT (A) and (B) : In the affirmative.
POINT (C): As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
POINT No (A) and (B):-
7. On perusal of the pleading of the parties, it is not in dispute that, the complainant insured his Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA-41 R-7740 with the O.P. The policy is valid from 13.10.2012 to 12.10.2013. Further it is not in dispute that the above said motor cycle was stolen out by the miscreants on 7.11.2012. On perusing the copy of the FIR it discloses that the complainant lodged the complaint on 8.11.2012 and intimated to the police that the said Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle was stolen out. The jurisdictional police also registered the case in Crime No.618/2012 ultimately the jurisdictional police issued ‘C’ Report to the Hon’ble Vth ACMM Bangalore. Based on the records it discloses that the vehicle in question and the offender both are not traced out and hence the jurisdictional police filed the ‘C’ Report.
8. The crux of the matter is to consider, whether the complainant has bona-fide reasons for not intimating the Insurance company well within time.
9. On perusal of the records it is not in dispute that the vehicle in question was stolen on 7.11.2012 and it is intimated to the police on 8.11.2012. Further the complainant approached his insurance agent to intimate about the theft of the motor cycle but the insurance agent advising him to contact the main branch. The complainant states that, when he went to main branch on 9.11.2012 the office hours of the branch was closed, hence the complainant once again went to main branch on 10.11.2012 and on that day O.P’s main branch also closed due to second Saturday. Again 11.11.2012 and on 12.11.2012 the O.Ps branch closed due to Sunday and Diwali festival on the next day. Hence, the complainant was able to give intimation to the insurance company only on 13.11.2012.
10. It is worth to note that, the object of intimation to the insurance company well within the 48 hours after the occurrence of accident or theft is just to ensure the credibility and to assist the police to find out the stolen vehicle. In this case the complainant prior to intimating to the O.P he has lodged the complaint within 48 hours of occurrence of theft. Furthermore on verification we found that on 10.11.2012 was the second Saturday and obviously office was closed. So also on 11.11.2012 and 12.11.2012 and both these days i.e. Sunday and Monday declared holiday on account of Diwali. However, the O.P did not whisper anything about the general holidays and the second Saturdays. Under the circumstances, due to bona-fide reasons only the complainant could not intimate the information of theft to the O.P within 48 hours. Every Rule has an exception but that exception should not harm others. Furthermore, the object of insurance is to overcome from the unforeseen acts. If the insurance companies adopting mere technicalities without honouring the claims it is nothing but not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. Hence the O.P cannot exonerate their liability. On perusal of the insurance covered amount shown is Rs.53,900/- but in the FIR the complainant quoted the price of the motor cycle vehicle is Rs.48,000/-. Hence the complainant is entitled for the relief to the tune of Rs 48000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of repudiation till realization. Furthermore the complainant not placed any cogent in order to award compensation of Rs 50,000/- and hence the complainant is not entitled for the said compensation. Accordingly, we answered the point ‘A’ in the affirmative and the point ‘B’ as partly affirmative
POINT (C):
11. Based on the findings given on the point No.(A) and (B) and in the result we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
- The complaint is allowed in part with cost.
- O.P i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its General Manager/authorized signatory is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.48,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of repudiation till the date of realization.
- Further O.P is hereby directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
- The O.P is hereby directed to comply the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
- Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 3rd Day of June 2016)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
*Rak
