Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

138/2012

S.P.Ramakrishnan, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance General Insurnce Co.Ltd, rep. by Director, The Reliance Centre, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.R.Radhapandian

23 Jun 2016

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on: 21.02.2012

                                                                Order pronounced on: 23.06.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

THURSDAY THE 23^rd   DAY OF JUNE 2016

 

C.C.NO.138/2012

 

 

S.P.Ramakrishnan,

S/o.Ponnusamy,

No.3, Pammal Nallathambi Street,

Dr.Ambedkar Nagar,

New Perungalathur, Chennai – 600 063.

                                                                                             ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

	1. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep.by its Director, The Reliance Centre, 19, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001.   2. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep.by its Director, 570, Naigaum Cross Road, Next to Royal Industrial Estate, Wadala (W), Mumbai – 400 001.   3.Reliance General Insurance, Rep.by its  Branch Manager, Anil Ddhirubhai Ambani Group, Regional Office, Reliance House, 6th Floor – 6, Haddows Road, Chennai – 600 006.   4.Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, NTC Complex, B1, No.14 Ramasawamy Street, West Tambaram, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 045.
	...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 :14.06.2012

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. R.Radha Pandian

Counsel for Opposite parties                   :Mrs.Elveera Ravindran

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

The Complainant is the owner of the Ambassador vehicle bearing TN 09 AG 9995 and he is using the said vehicle as taxi. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite parties for the period from 13.03.2010 to 12.03.2013. The said vehicle was stolen on 15.04.2010 along with original RC book, permit, Insurance, TV and Lap Top at Airport taxi stand. The Complainant immediately informed the airport police station and also the agent of the opposite parties Mr.Kannan. As advised by the police, the Complainant made all possible searches and could not trace the vehicle.  Then he preferred Complaint on 06.05.2010 and the airport police registered in Crime No.2005/2010. The Complainant gave letters to the opposite parties on 04.06.2010 and they gave evasive reply and repudiated the claim on 04.01.2011, on the ground that there has been inordinate delay of 46 days in intimation of claim to the Insurance Company and 21 days delay in intimating the theft to the police. As per the Policy Condition No.1 notice shall be given in writing to the company as well as to the police in respect of theft immediately. The repudiation of claim is not sustainable. Hence the Complainant filed this complaint for claiming compensation with cost of the complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The opposite parties admit that the Complainant insured his taxi with them. As per Policy Condition No: 1 the complainant has not intimated the police and Insurance Company immediately. On the other hand he had intimated the theft to the police with a delay of 21 days and to the Insurance Company 46 days. Therefore the Policy Conditions has been breached by the complainant. Further the complainant admittedly left the vehicle with key inside, which has facilitated for easy theft and to make false claim and there is no cause of action arose to this complaint and prays to dismiss the same.

3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

4.POINT NO :1

          Admittedly the complainant is the owner of the Ambassador vehicle bearing registration No.TN 09 AG 9995 and the said vehicle was insured with the opposite parties  and Ex.B1 copy of the policy and Ex.B2 terms and condition of the policy issued in favour of the Complainant for the said vehicle.

5. The Complainant vehicle was stolen on 15.04.2010 along with the documents at the airport and a complaint was given to the police on 06.05.2010 with a delay of 21 days and the FIR was registered as Ex.A3 and further the intimation of theft given to the 3^rd opposite party on 04.06.2010 with a delay of 46 days under Ex.A4 letter.  The claim was repudiated by the opposite parties on 04.01.2011 under Ex.A5 & Ex.B3 conditions of the policy violated. 

          6. The complainant contended that immediate to the occurrence he informed the airport police station and agent of the Insurance Company. The airport police advised him to search the vehicle for some time and then prefer complaint. The complainant could not trace the said vehicle and hence he gave complaint on 06.05.2010 and as such there is no delay on the part of the Complainant. The fact remains that the complaint given to the police on 06.05.2010.  There is no material available that the police advised him to search the vehicle and then report the theft. Further the agent is not an authority of the Insurance Company.  Therefore admittedly immediate to the occurrence the complainant has not intimated the same to the police and Insurance Company.  Therefore it is held that the Complainant preferred the Complaint to the police with the delay of 21 days and intimated the Insurance company/opposite parties after 46 days delay.

7. The Opposite Party argued that if the condition of the policy violated and the theft was also intimated with a delay of 21 days to the Insurance Company, the rejection of the claim made by the Opposite Party is justifiable and further to his contention he relied on the judgments reported in IV (2012) CPJ 441 (NC) NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS. TRILOCHAN JANE  and II (2015) CPJ 262 (NC) RAMESH CHANDRA MEGHWANSHI VS. ORIENTAL INS. CO LTD and therefore prays to dismiss the Complaint.

8. The National Commission in its order in the 1^st referred the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in para 10 relied on as follows:

          Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in United India Insurance Company Limited v. M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, reported  in IV (2004) CPJ 15 (SC) = V (2004) SLT 876=JT 2004 (8) SC 8 has  held that the terms of policy have to be construed as it is and nothing can be added or subtracted from the same. The policy provides that in the case of theft, the matter should be reported ‘immediately’. In the context of a theft of the car, word ‘immediately’ has to be construed strictly to make the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation.

As per the above ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India the terms of the policy cannot be ordered or subtracted from the same and further policy provides to report the theft immediately to the Insurance Company.  In the case in hand, the policy provides to report the theft immediate of the occurrence. However after 21 days of occurrence only the theft was intimated to the police and after 46 days to the Opposite Parties which is in violation of the conditions of the policy. The National Commission also held that delaying in reporting theft of the car for 9 days would be a violation of condition of the policy and deprives the right of the insurer. Therefore in view of the above ratio of the Supreme Court and National Commission,   the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service  in rejecting the claim made by the Complainant after 46 days of the theft and accordingly this point is answered.

9. POINT:2

          Since the opposite parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief in this Complaint and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed without cost.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.     

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 23^rd   day of June 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated         NIL                      R.C.Book, Permit of the Vehicle      

Ex.A2 dated         NIL                      Copy of the Insurance

Ex.A3 dated         06.05.2010                   FIR registered by S2 Airport Police Station                  

Ex.A4 dated 04.06.2010                   Letter sent by the Complainant to the 3^rd Opposite

                                                Parties  

Ex.A5 dated 04.01.2011                   Letter sent by Opposite Parties to the Complainant     

Ex.A6 dated 10.02.2011                   Not traceable Certificate issued by S2 Airport

                                                  Police Station                       

Ex.A7 dated 01.04.2011                   Legal Notice sent by the Complainants to the

                                                 Opposite Parties                    

Ex.A8 dated NIL                     Acknowledgement Cards        

 

                  

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Copy of Policy

Ex.B2 dated NIL                     Terms and Conditions of Policy

Ex.B3 dated 04.01.2011                   Repudiation letter sent by Opposite Parties

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT