Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/17/2017

M/s. Chilamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., The Branch Manager & anr - Complainant(s)

Versus

R. Anand - Opp.Party(s)

M.B. Gopalan

22 Dec 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 BEFORE   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                   ::     PRESIDENT                       

                  Tmt.Dr.S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                            ::      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 17/2017

  (Against the order in C.C. No.17/2014 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Krishnagiri)

                         DATED THE 12^th  DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

 

1. The Branch Manager,

M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

The Branch Office,

Hosur,

Krishangiri District – 635 109.          

 

2. The Deputy Manager, (Claims Department),

M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

II Floor, Dare House,  

No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road,

Chennai – 600 001.                                                            .. Appellants/Opposite parties.

 

- Versus -

Thiru.  R. Anand,

S/o. Mr. Ramappa,

No.A-46-2, Bagalore Housing Unit,

Bagalore Road,

Hosur,

Krishnagiri District.                                                              .. Respondent /Complainant.

 

Counsel for Appellants /Opposite parties           : M/s. M.B. Gopalan

Counsel for Respondent /Complainant            : M/s. G.M. Anantha Kumar

 

This appeal coming before us for final hearing today, on 10.12.2021 and on hearing the arguments of Appellant and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following order:-

ORDER

Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI:

            This appeal has been filed by the appellant / opposite party under section 15  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Krishnagiri.

 

1.         The factual background culminating  in to  appeal is as follows:-

The complaint was filed against the opposite party insurance company alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in not settling the claim of the complainant. 

2.         It was submitted that the complainant had insured his car bearing Regn. No.KA-05/MK-7726 with the 1^st opposite party insurance company for a period of one year commencing from  02.05.2013 to 01.05.2014 under the policy bearing No.3362/00826209/000/00.  The policy was package private car policy and the premium paid was Rs.10,665/- and the IDV was fixed Rs.1,50,000/-.  When the complainant’s car was parked in front of  his home on 08.09.2013 at about 10.30 P.M. the same was stolen and a complaint was  lodged by the complainant with the Hosur Hudco Police Station and a FIR No.1883 /2013 was filed u/s 379 of IPC on 22.01.2014 the Hudco Police after elaborate investigation had given non-traceable certificate to the complainant.  The fact of theft was also informed to the insurance company promptly and the claim was also laid to them.   However, the insurer failed to pay the IDV to the complainant as per the contract of insurance policy.  Thus alleging deficiency in service the complaint was filed with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay the policy amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 

3.         The opposite parties filed version stating that the complainant as per the conditions of the policy neither intimated about the theft immediately nor preferred a complaint to the police immediately as per the conditions of the policy and hence, the complainant was not entitled to any relief.  Thus they prayed for dismissal of the complaint contending that there was a delay of 32 days in filing the FIR and 46 days delay in intimation to the opposite parties.  

4.         The complainant filed proof affidavit and filed documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 and on the side of the opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 was marked.    The District Commission after appraising the pleadings and documents filed by both parties allowed the complaint holding that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in not paying the value of the vehicle when it was stolen during the policy period and directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,12,500/- along with Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of the complaint.

5.         Aggrieved against the same, the opposite parties have preferred the present appeal.   The Counsel for the appellant filed written arguments and also adduced oral arguments however the respondent remained absent and failed to submit any oral or written arguments.

6.         Point for consideration:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and if so to what relief the complainant is entitled?

7.         Point:-

The Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the District Commission failed to see that the claim was made with the delay of 46 days to the insurer and there was 32 days delay in preferring the police complaint.   The Counsel cited the condition No.1 of the policy in support of her contentions which is as follows:-

“Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require.   Every letter claim writ summons and / or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured.  Notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this Policy.  In case of theft or criminal act which may be subject of a claim under this Policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the policy and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender”. 

Thus, it was argued by the Counsel that the intimation of theft to the insurer was given only on 24.10.2013 that too by way of claim form which is utter violation of the policy conditions and the FIR too was also filed with the delay of 32 days i.e. on 10.10.2013 when the alleged theft had happened on 08.09.2013.  

8.         Heard the Counsel for appellant and we find force in the arguments put forth by her that the purpose behind immediate intimation as a policy condition was because to prevent fake claim.  In the present case, it is evident that as per Ex.A3 and Ex.B4 the theft was intimated to the police for the first time on 10.10.2013 i.e with the delay of 32 days.  The complainant had no immediate concern to intimate the police about the theft of his vehicle and with the huge delay of 32 days i.e. completion of more than one month the same was intimated to the police.    Further the insurance company opposite parties were also not intimated immediately enabling the insurance company to take steps to proceed to pay the claim of the complainant.  In such circumstances the decision cited by the Counsel for the appellant reported in  2012 SCC online NCDRC 143, in the matter of Rajesh Kumar, S/o. Shri Jaswant Singh, R/o. Village Mandothi Tehsil Bahadurgarh District Jhajjar –Versus- New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office 323401-122-123 Model Basti, Behind Filmstan Cinema, New Delhi – 110 005 wherein it has been held as follows,

“Lodging of an FIR in the case of a theft should be an immediate concern for any owner of a vehicle and under the terms of the policy he is required to inform the insurance company and file the claim at the earliest”.

9.         Further, the view of the appellant Counsel is supported by the decision rendered in First Appeal No.321/2005 by NCDRC dt.19.06.2010 holding that the delay in informing the insurance company and to the police could be fatal as the vehicle  under theft might have been dismantled or taken to a longer distance.   The same view was supported by the decision rendered by NCDRC in R.P No.2683/2012 dt. 16.04.2013.  Thus, we are in complete agreement with the submissions made by the Counsel for appellant and we are of the view that the District Commission had erred in allowing the complaint and directing the opposite parties to pay the 75% of the insured declared Value.  Thus, we answer the point against the complainant and in favour of the opposite parties /appellant. 

In the result, we allowed this First Appeal setting aside the order of the Learned District Commission, Krishnagiri.

 

S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                           R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                                             PRESIDENT