Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/336/2013

M.Santhanam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

N.B.Kotteswaran

11 Oct 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 22.10.2013

                                                                          Date of Order : 11.10.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.336/2013

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018

                                 

M. Santhanam,

No.170/4, Bajanai Koil Street,

Vadgal Vilathur,

Chettipuniyam Post,

Chengelpet – 603 104.                                                    .. Complainant.                                                

 

      ..Versus..

 

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited,

Corporate Claim Department,

Represented by its Authorized Signatory,

Sundaram Towers,

Nos.45 & 46, Whites Road,

Chennai – 600 014.                                                    ..  Opposite party.

          

Counsel for complainant      :  M/s. N.B. Kotteswaran

Counsel for opposite party  :  M/s. M.B. Gopalan & others

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- being insurance amount for the theft of Heavy Goods Vehicle Lorry of Tata Motors and to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- towards compensation for pecuniary loss and mental agony with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he is the owner of the  Heavy Goods Vehicle Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 19 E 3645 Engine No.697TC69G47118741, Chassis No.MAT 373177BIG18824 which was insured with the opposite party insurance company vide policy No.VOC0110469000100.  It was lost on 26.03.2012 by way of theft when the vehicle was parked near the house of the complainant.  Immediately, the complainant lodged a police complaint before D-6, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station. After completion of preliminary investigation, F.I.R. was registered in Crime No.459/2012 on 29.06.2012.  The complainant submits that immediately after the theft, the complainant has informed the opposite party insurance company and on the instruction of the insurance company he lodged the complaint before the police.   The complainant submits that after registration of complaint before the police, the complainant has approached the insurance company for insurance claim and sent several emails and written representations during the month of June and Aug 2012.   The complainant submits that the branch office of the insurance company insisted upon for production of FIR and non Traceable Certificate.  Thereafter, the complainant submitted the claim form with all details claiming compensation.  The opposite party after inordinate delay repudiated the claim and issued proceedings dated:10.06.2013.  Thereafter, the complainant issued several representations informing the opposite party that the impugned vehicle having subsistence insurance policy for the period from 27.07.2011 to 26.07.2012.   Since the opposite party has not come forward to compensate for the loss of vehicle, the complainant approached insurance Ombudsman. After enquiry, the insurance Ombudsman issued proceedings dated:25.09.2013 that the insurance policy taken by the complainant is a commercial policy and does not fall within the ambit of insurance Ombudsman.  The act of the opposite party caused great mental agony.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite party states and admits that the complainant’s vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 19 E 3645 was insured with the opposite party for the period from 27.07.2011 to 26.07.2012.   As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the insured shall be required to observe and fulfil the conditions for enforcing the same.  As per condition Nos.1 & 5 of the policy which reads as follows:

 “1. Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. ........ In case of theft or other criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this Policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender.

5. The Insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the Company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured.  In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk”.

3.     The opposite party states that the alleged theft of vehicle is happened on 23.06.2012.  The intimation to the Insurance Company was given only on 08.11.2012 after inordinate delay of 5 months which is totally a breach of condition No.1 of the policy.   The opposite party submits that the complainant had lodged complaint of theft with police on 29.06.2012, nearly after 6 days of the occurrence.   Thus, the complainant had failed to observe and comply with the crucial requirement of condition No.1 of the Policy in lodging immediate complaint with police.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.   Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.    To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 are marked on the side of the opposite party.

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- being the assured insurance claim for the loss of heavy vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 19 E 3645 by way of theft as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

Both parties field their respective written arguments.  Heard their respective Counsels also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavit, documents etc.  Admittedly, the Heavy  Goods Vehicle Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 19 E 3645 Engine No.697TC69G47118741, Chassis No.MAT 373177BIG18824 owned by the complainant was insured with the opposite party insurance company vide policy No.VOC0110469000100 was lost on 26.03.2012 by way of theft when the vehicle was parked near the house of the complainant.  Immediately, the complainant lodged a police complaint before D-6, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station.  After completion of preliminary investigation, F.I.R. was registered in Crime No.459/2012 on 29.06.2012 as per Ex.A5.  On a careful perusal of Ex.A5, it is very clear that the compliant was given only on 29.06.2012.  The complainant also has not produced any document to prove that the complainant has lodged a police complaint on 23.06.2012.   Further the contention of the complainant is that immediately after the theft, the complainant has informed the opposite party insurance company and on the instruction of the insurance company he lodged the complaint before the police.    But there is no iota of evidence in this case to prove the above contents.   Further the contention of the complainant is that after registration of complaint before the police, the complainant has approached the insurance company for insurance claim and sent several emails and written representations during the month of June and Aug 2012.   But the complainant has not produced any document in this Forum. 

7.     Further the complainant contended that the branch office of the insurance company insisted upon for production of FIR and non Traceable Certificate as per Ex.A6.  Thereafter, the complainant submitted the claim form with all details claiming compensation as per Ex.B2.  The opposite party after inordinate delay repudiated the claim and issued proceedings dated:10.06.2013 as per Ex.A7.  Thereafter, the complainant issued several representations informing the opposite party that the impugned vehicle having subsistence insurance policy for the period from 27.07.2011 to 26.07.2012.   Since the opposite party has not come forward to compensate for the loss of vehicle, the complainant approached insurance Ombudsman. After enquiry, the insurance Ombudsman issued proceedings dated:25.09.2013 as per Ex.A10 that the insurance policy taken by the complainant is a commercial policy and does not fall within the ambit of insurance Ombudsman.  Hence, the complainant was constrained to file this case claiming insurance amount of Rs.16,00,000/- and a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- with cost.

8.     The learned Counsel for the opposite party contended that admittedly, the complainant’s vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 19 E 3645 was insured with the opposite party for the period from 27.07.2011 to 26.07.2012 as per Ex.B1.   As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the insured shall be required to observe and fulfil the conditions for enforcing the same.  As per condition Nos.1 & 5 of the policy which reads as follows:

 “1. Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. ........ In case of theft or other criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this Policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender.

5. The Insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the Company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured.  In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk”.

  In this case, the complainant intimated the alleged theft of vehicle to the police only on 29.06.2012 after a delay of 6 days.  The complainant has not explained the reason for the delay of such long 6 days.   The alleged explanation that immediately after the theft, the complainant lodged the complaint before the police and the police after preliminary enquiry registered FIR also not acceptable since Ex.A5, FIR is very clear that the police complaint is lodged only on 29.06.2012. 

9.     Further the contention of the opposite party is that the alleged theft of vehicle is happened on 23.06.2012.  The intimation to the Insurance Company was given only on 08.11.2012 after inordinate delay of 5 months which is totally a breach of condition No.1 of the policy.   On a careful perusal of Ex.B1 policy terms and conditions, it is very clear that such intimation to the Insurance Company shall be given in the case of any accident or loss or damage alone.  In the case of theft or other Criminal act which may the subject matter of a claim under the policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police.  There is no specific condition to give immediate notice to the insurance company in writing as specified in the policy. 

10.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that the decision reported in:

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO.1356 OF 2016

Between

Shimbhu Singh Shekhawat

-Versus-

Cholamandalam MS. General Insurance Company Ltd

Held that

          “As per the policy condition, it was an obligation on the part of the complainant to give information in writing immediately upon the occurrence of any loss, but admittedly the complainant failed to give written information to OP company immediately.  It appears that the complainant approached on 13.01.2012 first time along with the claim document to the OP company.  Thus, in our considered view, there was delay in filing the FIR as well as the intimation to the OP insurance company.  Thus, the repudiation of claim was legal, as per the terms of the policy”.

shows that due intimation of theft shall be given immediately to the insurance company also.  In this case, the complainant  violated the terms and conditions of the policy by not giving immediate notice to the Insurance Company.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that this complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 11^th day of October 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANTS’ SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	24.10.2011	Copy of Registration Certificate
Ex.A2		Copy of Tax Card
Ex.A3	02.11.2011	Copy of Goods Carriage Permit
Ex.A4	27.07.2011	Copy of Insurance Policy Note
Ex.A5	29.06.2012	Copy of FIR
Ex.A6		Copy of Non Traceable Certificate
Ex.A7	10.06.2013	Copy of Proceedings of the opposite party in repudiating the claim
Ex.A8	26.07.2013	Copy of representation made by the complainant
Ex.A9	13.08.2013	Copy of representation made by the complainant
Ex.A10	25.09.2013	Copy of proceedings of the Insurance Ombudsman

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS: 

Ex.B1		Copy of Insurance Policy with terms and conditions
Ex.B2	08.11.2012	Copy of claim form from the insured intimating the claim
Ex.B3	10.06.2013	Copy of Repudiation letter along with postal receipt

 

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT