BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Wednesday the 26th day of September, 2012
C.C.No.147/2011
Between:
E.Chandrasekhar Chodary, S/o Venkatrami Reddy,
H.No.1-265, Resident of Mamidalapadu Village, Kurnool Mandal and District - 518 004.
…Complainant
-Vs-
Relience General Insurance Company Limited,Represented by its Branch Manager,
Shop No.7 to 12, 4th Floor, Alankar Plaza Kurnool - 518 001.
...Opposite ParTy
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Smt.D.S.Saileela, Advocate for complainant and Sri.P.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President) C.C. No.147/2011
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying:-
- To direct the opposite party to pay Rs.4,00,000/- towards the costs of Tractor;
- To grant a sum of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and hardship;
- To pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint;
- To pass any other order or orders which are deem to be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant Purchased the tractor bearing No.AP21 X 7188. He hired the said tractor to M/s Sree Rayalaseema Alkalis and Allied Limited Gondiparla. The complainant insured his tractor with opposite party under policy bearing No.1808782343002479. The period of policy is from 08-03-2009 to 07-03-2010. On 02-10-2009 the driver of the complainant took the tractor to Alkalis Factory. At about 7.00 P.M., when the driver was returning he noticed flood water flowing heavily from the fields on the E-Tandrapadu Bridge towards Tungabadra River. The driver frightened and left the tractor near the bridge and went back to his village. There was heavy flood from 02-10-2009 to 04-10-2009. On 06-10-2009 the complainant along with driver searched for tractor and it was not found near the bridge. The complainant also searched in the surrounding Villages but it was not traced. The complainant gave a report to the Sub Inspector of Police Taluk P.S. The Sub Inspector issued a certificate on 21-01-2010 stating that the tractor might have washed away in the floods. The complainant immediately submitted the claim to the opposite party with all required documents. There was no response from the opposite party. The complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite party on 12-01-2011. The opposite party received the said notice but it did not settle the claim. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. It is admitted that the tractor bearing No.AP21 X 7188 was insured with the opposite party. The opposite party issued a policy bearing No.1808782343002479. The period of the policy is from 08-03-2009 to 07-03-2010. The opposite party is not aware that on 02-10-2009 the driver took the tractor to Alkalies Factor and that there were floods from 02-10-2009 to 04-10-2009. It is denied that the tractor of the complainant was washed away in the floods. The opposite party is not aware that the complainant lodged a report before the Taluk Police Station, Kurnool. The complainant suppressed the material facts and filed the false case with a dishonest intention to gain wrongfully. There was delay of nearly 4 months in giving the intimation about the alleged loss of the tractor. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any loss or damage. In view of the violation of the policy conditions, the company is not liable to pay compensation to the complainant. The complainant did not choose to lodge complaint before the police immediately after the alleged loss of the vehicle. The complainant is not entitled to claim a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards loss of tractor. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A8 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite party Ex.B1 is marked and sworn affidavit of opposite party is filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. POINTS i and ii:- Admittedly the complainant is the owner of the tractor bearing No.AP21 X 7188. The said vehicle was insured with opposite party under the original of Ex.B1 policy. The period of the policy is from 08-03-2009 to 07-03-2010. It is the case of the complainant that on 02-10-2009 his driver took the tractor to Alkalis Factory, that while the driver was returning with the tractor, he noticed heavy flood near E-Tandrapadu Village and left the tractor near E-Tandrapadu Bridge. The complainant in support of his contention did not choose to file the sworn affidavit of his driver. The complainant in his sworn affidavit no doubt stated that on 02-10-2009 his driver left the vehicle near E-Tandrapadu Bridge. The complainant did not give any explanation as to why he could not to file the sworn affidavit of his driver in support of his contention that his vehicle was left near E-Tandrapaud Bridge on 02-10-2009. The complainant filed Ex.A1 copy of the certificate said to have been issued by Sub Inspector of Police Taluk Police Station. It is stated in the said certificate that 10-10-2009 the complainant came to Police Station and represented that his tractor was found missing when it was left by the driver near E-Tandrapadu Bridge on 02-10-2009. It is not stated in Ex.A1 that the tractor of the complainant was washed away in the flood water on 02-10-2009. It is simply mentioned in Ex.A1 that the tractor of the complainant might have washed away in the floods. The Sub Inspector of Police who issued Ex.A1 was not certain that the vehicle of the complainant was washed away in the floods on 02-10-2009.
8. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party that there was abnormal delay in giving intimation to the opposite party about the alleged loss of the vehicle, that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy and that the opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. According to the complainant he lost his tractor in flood water on 02-10-2009. It is the contention of the opposite party that the complainant informed about the alleged loss of the vehicle on 29-01-2010. There was abnormal delay of 119 days in giving intimation about the alleged loss of the vehicle by the complainant to the opposite party. As per the condition No.1 mentioned in Ex.B1, notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage to the vehicle. Admittedly the complainant did not give any intimation in writing to the opposite party immediately after alleged loss of the vehicle on 02-10-2009. The complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant also did not give report to police immediately after the loss of the vehicle. According to the complainant he lost the vehicle on 02-10-2009. There is a mention in Ex.A1 that the complainant gave representation to the police about the loss of the vehicle only on 10-10-2009. The Honourable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi in First Appeal No.321/2005 dated 09-12-2009 held that “the delay in lodging the F.I.R. after 2 days of the coming to know of the theft and 9 days to the insurance Company, can be fatal as, in the meantime, the car could have travelled a long distance or may have been dismantled by that time and sold to Kabaadi (Scrap dealer)”. In the present case on hand the complainant did not give intimation in writing about the loss of his vehicle to the opposite party immediately. He also did not lodge the complainant before the police immediately after the alleged loss of the vehicle. The complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore the opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
9. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 26th day of September, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nill For the opposite party : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of Certificate issued by Sub Inspector of Police,
Kurnool Taluk P.S. dated 21-01-2010.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of Tractor Registration Certificate No.AP21 X 7188.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of Letter issued by Syndicate Bank to complainant dated 19-08-2010.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of Policy bearing No.1808782343002479.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of Documents List.
Ex.A6 Office copy of Legal Notice dated 12-01-2011.
Ex.A7 Postal Receipt.
Ex.A8 Postal Acknowledgement.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:-
Ex.B1 Photo copy of Policy bearing No.1808782343002479 along
with terms and conditions.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
