Date of filing : 21-09-2012
Date of Disposal : 22-04-2013
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC).
Smt. M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Monday, the 22nd day of April, 2013
C.C.NO.49/2012
Between
Y.Venkatesulu
S/o Y.Narayanappa
r/o Kodikonda Check Post Village
Chilamathur Mandal
Anantapur District. …Complainant
Vs
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory
Reliance Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.,
1st floor, M.R.R. Trade Centre,
Bangalore Road,
Anantapur. … Opposite Part
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri R.Yerri Swamy, advocate for the complainant and opposite party is called absent and set-exparte and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of complainant’s side, the Forum delivered the following
O R D E R
Smt.M.Sreelatha, Lady Member: - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party to direct him to pay a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- towards cost of the vehicle as on the date of theft and Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and legal expenses in total Rs.4,00,000/- and costs and grant such other relief or reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The complainant is resident of Kodikonda Check Post in Chilamathur Mandal. The complainant is the owner of Toyota Qualis bearing No.KA-01-MD-2457 and the said vehicle was insured with the opposite party under Cover Note No.110000047697 dt.20-04-2010. On 02-06-2010 at about 10.00 P.M. when the complainant parked his vehicle in front of his house, the above said vehicle was found missing as some unknown persons taken away the vehicle. After that the complainant made search in and around his house and his Village till 14-07-2010, but the complainant could not trace the above said vehicle. Then the complainant gave a complaint to the Station House Officer, Chilamathur Police and the same was registered as Cr.No.61/2010 under section 379 I.P.C. The police made search in A.P. State and also neighbouring State of Karnataka and Kerala but the vehicle was not traced out and finally the police filed final report stating that the vehicle was undetectable. The complainant approached the opposite party Insurance Company after stolen of the vehicle. Being the insurer of the vehicle, the opposite party is liable to pay compensation but instead of paying the same, postponing the same on the ground or the other. The complainant also filed a petition before the Mandal Legal Services Authority, Hindupur against the opposite party, but the opposite party did not appear before the said authority to settle the matter amicably. Hence, it clearly shows that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant suffered a lot mentally and financially. Hence the complainant filed the complaint claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-.
3. The opposite party is called absent and set-exparte.
4. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
2. To what relief?
5. To prove the case of the complainant, the evidence on affidavit of the complainant has been filed and marked ExA1 to A7 documents.
6. Heard on complainant’s side.
7. POINT NO.1 – The counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant is a permanent resident of Kodikonda Check Post and he is the owner of Toyota Qualis bearing No.KA-01-MD-2457 and the above said vehicle was insured with the opposite party on 20-04-2010. On 02-06-2010 at about 10.00 P.M. when the complainant parked his vehicle in front of his house, the vehicle was taken away by some unknown persons and he made search in and around his house till 14-07-2010, but the vehicle was not traced. Hence, he made a complaint to the Station House Officer, Chilamathur Police and the same was registered as Cr.No.61/2010 and the cost of the vehicle is Rs.3,80,000/-. The Police of Chilamathur made search to trace the vehicle but the same was not traced. The Police filed final report stating that the vehicle was undetectable. Immediately the complainant made a report to the opposite party but the opposite party failed to settle the insurance amount. The complainant made a petition before the Mandal Legal Services Authority, Hindupur against the opposite party for settling the claim amicably, but the opposite party did not appear before the said authority. Hence the present complaint is filed claiming compensation.
8. The complainant filed Ex.A1 to A7 documents claiming that he is the owner of the vehicle, whereas in Ex.A3 and A4 cover note and Registration extract, which shows that the name of the owner as Y.Venkatesulu resident of Chickbalapur. The complainant claimed that he is permanent resident of Kodikonda Check Post and Ex.A1 and A2 also show that he is resident of Kodikonda Check post but the complaint silent about the documents A3 and A4. The complaint is also silent whether Y.Venkatesulu who is resident of Chickbalapur and the present complaint is one and the same. The complaint is totally silent whether the policyholder and the complainant is one and the same because Ex.A3 document i.e. crucial to settle the claim wherein it is mentioned that Y.Venkatesulu, who is resident of Chickbalapur. The complaint is also silent when the complainant made claim before the Insurance Company. The complainant is also silent whether he made complaint immediate to the theft or subsequent to the theft. The complainant filed Ex.A7 document which shows that the complaint is pending. But Ex.A7 is totally silent about the insurance company name whether previous representation made by the complainant. In Ex.A7 it is only mentioned that the complaint of theft case is pending till 03-06-2010. It gives doubt that whether the complaint made by the complainant immediate to the incident and the complainant has also not filed any document to show that he made representation to the opposite party immediate to the incident and the complaint is also silent on what grounds the opposite party not settled the claim in Ex.A1 also the name of policyholder and address shown as Bagepalli Village,Chickbalapur. All these documents give doubt.
9. The complainant’s counsel argued that when he made representation to settle the claim, the opposite party not settled the claim, hence he filed petition before the Mandal Legal Services Authority, Hindupur, but they have also not turned up to settle the claim. We feel that the complainant till filing of this petition, he has not made any representation about the ownership. The complainant failed to establish his ownership beyond doubt. The opposite party and the complainant’s counsel argued that the complainant made oral representation because the Police not filed final report till 2012. Hence the complainant is entitled claim as there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
10. The complainant has not filed any document to show that on what ground the opposite party failed to settle the claim. We assume that there is delay in giving complaint to the Insurance Company, hence the opposite party has not settled the claim. We are relying on the judgment reported in 2012(4) C.P.J. National Commission between Hasta Singh Vs. Reliance Insurance Company wherein the theft of the vehicle took place and there is delay in lodging FIR and sending information to the Insurance Company. FIR lodged after delay of 27 days from the commission of theft information to Insurance company after 280 days repudiation made by the Insurance company is justified. We are also relying on the judgment reported in 2013(1) C.P.J. 713 National Commission between Suman Vs. Reliance Insurance Company the theft of vehicle delay in lodging of FIR the vehicle was stolen on 11/12-6-2009 delay has not been written in FIR, FIR lodged for more than 85 hours intimation to Insurance after 14 days of theft, repudiation justified. In this case theft was occurred on 11/12-06-2009 the complainant made searches at her own level and she could not find the vehicle and lodged complaint on 05-06-2009 no reasons for delay in the FIR repudiation made by the insurance is justified. We are relying on the above decisions reported by the National Commission. As in the present case also there is delay of more than 40 days. Date of theft was 02-06-2010 and FIR lodged on 14-07-2010. In FIR also there are no grounds for the delay. The complainant simply mentioned that he has made searches in and around his house. But he has not mentioned any reliable ground for the delay and we are also relying that there is delay in giving intimation to the opposite party because there is no iota of evidence to show that the complainant made claim to the insurance immediate to the incident, because there is no document to show that he made complaint to the insurance company immediate to the incident. Hence, we feel that the opposite party has rightly not settled the claim.
11. The complainant failed to establish when he made representation to the Insurance Company to settle the claim. Because in complaint and chief affidavit of the complainant, it was mentioned that he approached the opposite party when the vehicle was stolen on 14-07-2010 whereas in Ex.A7 it was mentioned that there was claim pending. The complaint itself gives doubt that he made complaint to the opposite party immediate to the incident or on the date of intimation to police and the complaint is totally silent when the cause of action arose because the complainant failed to mention the cause of action in the complaint itself. We feel that the complaint itself is barred by limitation because the theft took place on 02-06-2010 and the present complaint is filed on 21-09-2012. As per section 24(A) of Consumer Protection Act, the time for limitation from the date on which cause of action arises or from the date of repudiation. In the present case the two aspects are totally silent and the complainant has not even tried to issue legal notice till filing P.L.C. under Ex.A6. He simply mentioned that he made oral requests with the opposite party but the opposite party has not settled the claim. We feel that that the complainant failed to establish that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as the complainant failed to establish his own case. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as the complainant failed to establish his own case. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the opposite party and against the complainant.
12. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 22nd day of April, 2013
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES
-NIL- - NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
1. Ex.A1 – Certified Xerox copy of FIR in Cr.No.61/10 of Chilamathur P.S.
2. Ex.A2 - Certified Xerox copy of Final Report in Cr.No.61/10 of Chilamathur P.S.
3. Ex.A3 – Certified Xerox copy of Cover Note issued by the opposite party in favour of
the complainant.
4. Ex.A4 – Certified Xerox copy of B-Register Extract issued by Regional Transport
Officer, Hindupur.
5. Ex.A5 - Certified Xerox copy of Certificate of Registration relating to vehicle bearing
No.KA-01-MD-2457 issued in the name of Kavitha.
6. Ex A6 - Certified Xerox copy of petition filed by the complainant before the Mandal
Legal Services Authority, Hindupur.
7. Ex.A7 - Reminder dt.22-07-2011 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
-NIL
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT (FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR.
Typed by JPNN
