Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/872/2011

S.V.Ramakrishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & another - Opp.Party(s)

Hanumanth Rao

25 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

 

BEFORE :  HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI                     PRESIDENT 

       THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI                                                JUDICIAL MEMBER

                  TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                     MEMBER

                                                                                   

F.A.NO.872/2011

 

(Against the order in CC.No.1021/2009, dated 18.08.2011 on the file of DCDRF, Chennai (South)

 

DATED THIS THE 25^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015

 

1.S.V.Ramakrishnan (Died)

2.Mrs.T.Usha,

3.Mr.S.R.Satheesh Kumar,

4.Mr.S.R.Sanjeev Kumar,                                   M/s.C.Hanumantha Rao

All are residing at                                        Counsel for Appellants/Complainants

New No.91, Old No.37/2,

Third Main Road,

Gandhi Nagar, Adayar,

Chennai 600 020.

-vs-

 

 

1.Oriental Insurance Company Ltd,

   Mahalakshmi Mansion,

   14, I Main Road,

   Gandhi Nagar, Adayar,                              M/s.N.Maheswariah

   Chennai- 20                                             Counsel for Respondents/Opp.parties

   Rep by its Divisional Manager.

 

2.Oriental Insurance Company Ltd,

   Claims Service Centre,

   Oriental House, 2^nd Floor,

   216/115, Prakasam Salai,

   Chennai 600 108 rep by its

   Deputy Manager,

 

          The 1^st appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint.  Against the said order, the appellants / complainants filed this appeal praying for to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.1021/2009, dated 18.08.2011.     

 

 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 21.01.2015, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.

 

A.K.ANNAMALAI,  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          The complainants are the appellant.

2.       The 1^st appellant (Now deceased) /complainant before the District Forum  having insured his two wheeler TN 74 E 2551 for the risk and the policy covered theft and other risks by paying premium of Rs.622/- with the 1^st opposite party. On 25.1.2009 when the vehicle was parked at the Besant Nagar park area was stolen for which after giving a complaint before the Sastriri Nagar Police Station, Adayar, and the claim was made with the opposite party on the basis of policy.  But the opposite parties repudiated the claim on the ground that the policy was covered only fire with liability and not for theft and thereby a consumer complaint came to be filed claiming the insurance amount along with costs.

3.       The opposite parties denied the allegations before the District Forum and stating that the policy was covered only for fire and not covering theft the repudiation was rightly made and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

4.       Aggrieved by the impugned order the complainants have come forward with this amended appeal grounds contended that the District Forum erroneously dismissed the complaint without considering the materials and terms and conditions of the policy and spirit of the policy taken and thereby the appeal is to be allowed by accepting the complaint.

5.       We have heard both sides contentions, arguments and carefully considered the materials in this regard.  The only question arise to settle the claim whether the repudiation of the opposite party against the claim of the complainant for the loss of

vehicle due to theft not covered that it is only for the purpose of fire and liability and not for theft is correct one.  The complainants / appellants contended that the policy was obtained for all the risks covered if any towards vehicle under Ex.B5 policy and Ex.A7 and also the premium paid under Ex.A7.  On perusal of Ex.A7 and B4 issued by the opposite parties National Insurance Company regarding rates of premium table for two wheeler and cars under the own damages covers break up and various type of premium details are given and even under Ex.A7 policy and B4 Certificate cum policy issued under the name of Motor Insurance Certificate Cum Policy Schedule Motorised-Two Wheelers Fire with Liability only Policy-Zone relating to the policy No.412100/31/2008/5556 in the name of the complainant S.V.Ramakrishnan with attached terms and conditions forming part of policy No.412100/31/2008/5556 in which the terms are mentioned among other claim for theft of vehicle not payable if theft not reported to the company within 48 hours of its occurrence and now the policy covered regarding limit of liability under Sec.11  (1) (ii) in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event is Rs.1,00,000/- and from these details it is clear regarding theft only if it is not informed within 48 hours of occurrence it cannot be claimed would meant the policy also covers for occurrence of theft also and it is wrong to state that the policy covers only for the purpose of fire occurrence only no such specific condition is available under the policy and usually no owners would insure the vehicle only for the purpose of fire alone which may be rare occurrence one.  When the complainant as a policy holder paid various amounts towards premium under various heads for the purpose of cover as per  the  break up figures as pointed out under Ex.A7 and when the opposite parties attached such conditions with the policy certificate specially pointing out the nature of risks covered including theft now they cannot go back by stating that the policy taken by the complainant covers only for fire alone and thereby we are of the view that the District Forum erroneously dismissed the complaint which is to be set aside and accordingly

          In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint is set aside and the complaint is allowed.  The opposite parties are directed to consider the claim of the complainant on the basis of claim as per Ex.A6 without insisting any further details from the complainant Ramakrishnan (deceased) who is no more and since the present appellants are being legal heirs.

  The opposite parties shall settle the claim within six weeks from the date of this order and

  the opposite parties shall pay a cost of Rs.5000/- to the appellants / complainants on behalf of the deceased complainant.

 The directions shall be complied within a period of 6 weeks from the date of this order.

 

P.BAKIAYAVATHI               A.K.ANNAMALAI                          R.REGUPATHI

    MEMBER                           (J) MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT