BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President,<br /> <br /> 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member,<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.130/2009<br /> Order dated this the 18th day of March 2010<br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT/S <br /> <br /> Sri.B.R.Suresha S/o Late Ramegowda, <br /> R/o House No.70/1 Bandihole Village, <br /> Kasaba Hobli, K.R.Pet Taluk, <br /> at present R/at Hemavathi Extension K.R.Pet.<br /> <br /> (By Sri.T.Lokesh., Advocate)<br /> <br /> -Vs-<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY/S<br /> <br /> 1. Ravindra, Proprietor, <br /> Sai Tractors, Sri Complex, <br /> Kallahalli, M.C.Road, <br /> Mandya.(ABSENT)<br /> 2. The Manager, <br /> I.C.I.C.I. Lombard Motor Insurance Co., <br /> 2nd Floor, S.V.R. Complex, Main Road, <br /> Madivala, <br /> Bangalore – 560 068.<br /> 3. The General Manager, <br /> I.C.I.C.I. Lombard Motor Insurance Co., <br /> Zenith House, Keshav Rao Khade <br /> Marg Mahalaxmi, Mumbai.(ABSENT)<br /> (By Sri.M.E.Madhusudhan., Advocate for 2nd O.P.)<br /> <br /> Date of complaint 11.11.2009<br /> Date of service of notice to<br /> Opposite parties 01.12.2009<br /> Date of order 18.03.2010<br /> Total Period 3 Months 17 Days<br /> Result The complaint is partly allowed, directing the 2nd and 3rd Opposite parties to pay the insurance amount of Rs.3,72,299/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment with cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant.<br /> <br /> Sri.Siddegowda,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the 2nd & 3rd Opposite parties claiming Rs.4,60,343/- with interest. <br /> 2. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant had purchased tractor and trailer bearing No. KA-54-T-239 and 240 from 1st Opposite party on 28.07.2007 for Rs.5,50,000/- by availing loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from L&T Finance Ltd., and the said tractor and trailer were insured with 2nd & 3rd Opposite party for Rs.3,72,299/- from 26.08.2008 to 25.08.2009. In the night of 18.01.2009, the tractor and trailer parked infront of his house was stolen, after three days for search, the complaint was lodged on 21.01.2009 to the Town Police Station, K.R.Pet, and the Police have registered crime No.15/2009. The Complainant had informed the theft of the tractor and trailer to the office of 2nd & 3rd Opposite parties. The 2nd Opposite party by force collected all the papers on 08.07.2009 for settling the claim of the Complainant. Though, four months have been lapsed, the 2nd & 3rd Opposite parties simply dragging on the claim. The Complainant having financial crises struggling to clear the loan. On 18.08.2009, the L&T Finance Company has issued a legal notice to the Complainant to reimburse the loan. Without settling the claim of the Complainant, 2nd & 3rd Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. The 2nd and 3rd Opposite parties are liable to pay insurance amount of Rs.3,72,299/- with interest of Rs.38,044/- from 08.07.2009 till the filing of the complaint and Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering, totally Rs.4,60,343/-. <br /> 3. Notices were served on the Opposite parties. Though, the 1st Opposite party is served, remained absent and placed exparte. The 2nd Opposite party has filed version and 3rd Opposite party is also absent. 2nd Opposite party is the branch of 3rd Opposite party. In its version, 2nd Opposite party admitting the insurance of the tractor by the Complainant, contended that the Complainant placed the documents along with the claim form only on 08.07.2009 even after the letters dated 07.02.2009 and 29.06.2009 from the Opposite parties and immediately 2nd Opposite party considered the documents and processed the claim. Immediately after completion of the process of the claim the 2nd Opposite party issued the cheque for the sum assured i.e., Rs.3,70,299/- dated 11.12.2009 of I.C.I.C.I bank. At that time, the summons was served to this Opposite party. Without any repudiation letter from the Opposite party or intimation, the complaint is filed. The Opposite party has filed the cheque along with memo on 11.01.2010, as such the complaint is not maintainable. There is no cause of action, since the claim was not repudiated. The interest claimed does not arise, since the Opposite party has taken the period only to process the claim, interest cannot be levied. During the process of the claim of the Complainant, no harassment of any kind was made to the Complainant. Hence, there is no question of pain and suffering at all. The complaint is not maintainable and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> 4. During trial, the Complainant is examined and documents Ex.C.1 to C.9 are produced. On behalf of the 2nd Opposite party, 2nd Opposite party is examined and the documents Ex.R.1 is produced.<br /> 5. We have heard both the sides. <br /> 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:-<br /> 1. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in settling the claim?<br /> 2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the interest?<br /> 3. What order?<br /> 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:-<br /> 8. POINTS NO.1 & 2:- The undisputed facts are that the Complainant has availed the loan from L&T Finance Company to purchase the tractor and trailer and said tractor and trailer were insured with the 2nd and 3rd Opposite party Company for Rs.3,72,299/- for the period from 26.08.2008 to 25.08.2009. The documents and evidence of the Complainant that on a night of 18.01.2009, the tractor and trailer parked infront of his house at K.R.Pet were stolen and he has filed the complaint to Police on 21.01.2009 and Police have filed C-report on 02.07.2009 as per Ex.C.2 and C.7 are not disputed. Ex.C.6 and Ex.R.1 the letters of the Opposite party Insurance Company are not disputed by the Complainant. Ex.R.1 is dated 07.06.2009 and Ex.C.6 is dated 29.06.2009. As per the Complainant itself, the 2nd Opposite party has collected the claim papers on 08.07.2009 proved by Ex.C.1(a). <br /> 9. According to the Complainant, in spite of the claim registration the 2nd and 3rd Opposite party simply dragged on the matter, though 4 months have been lapsed and the Complainant having financial crises struggling to clear the loan availed from L&T Finance and in fact on 18.08.2009 the L&T Company has issued a legal notice to reimburse the loan with interest and hence, the 2nd and 3rd Opposite party have committed deficiency in service.<br /> 10. But, the contention of the Opposite party is that soon after receipt of the claim papers, on 08.07.2009 the claim was processed and the Opposite party prepared the cheque for the insured amount on 11.12.2009 and at that time, the notice of the Forum was served and hence, the Opposite party filed the cheque to the Forum on 11.01.2010. Therefore, the Opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and infact, the Opposite party has not repudiated the claim and hence, the complaint is not maintainable.<br /> 11. It is admitted fact that on 08.07.2009 according to the Complainant itself, the 2nd Opposite party has collected all the papers by force. It is proved that as per Ex.R.1 and Ex.C.6 the Opposite party issued letters to the Complainant to produce the records to consider the claim and thereafter, only on 08.07.2009 Complainant submitted all the records. The present complaint is filed on 11.11.2009. So, the Complainant waited for 4 months to settle the claim. According to the Complainant, he approached the Office of 2nd Opposite party on several times, but the matter was dragged.<br /> 12. Even though, the Opposite party prepared the cheque dated 11.12.2009 for the assured amount and filed before this Forum on 11.01.2010, but it was drawn in favour of the Financier. The say of the Opposite party that though the cheque was prepared at that time the summons was served from the Court. Actually, the notice of this Forum was served on 2nd and 3rd Opposite parties on 01.12.2009. So, it clearly proves that only after service of notice of complaint on 2nd and 3rd Opposite party, they have prepared the cheque on 11.12.2009 in favour of the Financier. Admittedly, the vehicle of the Complainant was insured and the insured amount should have been sent to the Complainant, but the cheque is drawn in favour of the Financier. At best 3 months time is sufficient to settle the claim of the insurance. In the present case, there is no complication at all, because the Complainant furnished all the records. It is not the case that the Opposite party appointed a Surveyor or Investigating Authority to investigate whether the intimation of theft is true or false. Therefore, the Opposite party has committed delay for more than three months in settling the claim of the Complainant and hence, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service.<br /> 13. The Complainant has sought for insurance amount of Rs.3,72,299/- and for this amount, the Opposite party has no objection and Opposite party is ready to pay the amount as per orders of the Forum. The Complainant has sought for interest from 08.07.2009 to 09.11.2009 at Rs.38,044/- with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering. In the circumstances of the case, the Complainant is not entitled to interest prior to filing of the complaint, because the Opposite party requires 3 to 4 months to process the claim and issue the cheque. With regard to the compensation for pain and suffering, the evidence discloses that no harassment was made by the Opposite party summoning the Complainant time and again asking to produce one document after another. The Opposite party itself has issued letters Ex.C.6 and C.R.1 after intimation by the Complainant to submit the claim form with all records and the Complainant himself has taken more than 5 months to submit the records. Further, within 4 months the Complainant has not issued any letter to Opposite party demanding the claim. Of course, the Financier issued notice Ex.C.8 claiming the amount of Rs.1,20,000/-, because the Complainant had issued a cheque drawn on 08.06.2009 towards the arrears of loan, but it was not encashed for want of insufficient funds. So, this notice is issued before the submission of claim form with records by the Complainant to 2nd Opposite party as per Ex.C.1(a) and for this loan notice, the Opposite party is not responsible. Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- as sought for. The Complainant has sought for interest from the date of complaint, it is reasonable to award interest at 9% p.a. instead of 18% claimed by the Complainant. <br /> 14. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order;<br /> ORDER<br /> The complaint is partly allowed, directing the 2nd and 3rd Opposite parties to pay the insurance amount of Rs.3,72,299/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment with cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 18th day of March 2010).<br /> <br /> (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) <br />