BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 13^th DAY OF JUNE 2018

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct OPs to pay him a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation, deficiency of service and mental agony together with cost of litigation.

2. The brief allegations made in the complaint are as under:

That the complainant is registered owner of Hero Honda Passion Plus two wheeler, which he purchased from Max Motors.  That the complainant got his vehicle insured with OPs which was valid from 26.03.2012 to 25.03.2013.  That on 25.05.2012 at about 8.00 AM the complainant was riding the said bike with his relative Chikkaswamy as pillion rider to go over to marriage and on the way near East West College Road he lost control over the same and fell down, his relative Chikkaswamy got injured and immediately he parked the said vehicle at road side and took Chikkaswamy to hospital for treatment.  That after some time complainant came back to collect his vehicle and was shocked to find that, the vehicle was not there and was stolen.  That the complainant immediately searched for the vehicle in the surrounding area but could not trace the same.  That complainant then went to police station to lodge the complaint but the Station House Officer was on election duty as such he could not lodge the complaint on that day.  That the complainant thereafter lodged complaint at Tavarekere Police Station on 06.06.2012 regarding the theft of the vehicle and the Police registered a case in Crime No.289/2012 Under Section 379 of IPC and issued FIR.  That the complainant also informed the RTO office requesting them not to transfer ownership of the vehicle in favour of anybody without his knowledge.  That on 18.06.2012 complainant intimated the call centre of OP regarding the theft of the vehicle and also submitted all the documents.

That the complainant being illiterate and coolie was not aware of the terms and conditions of the policy and also not aware of the fact that, he was expected to report the theft to OP immediately after the theft of the vehicle.  That the delay in informing the OP is not intentional but due to bonafide reasons.  That OP rejected the claim of the complainant vaguely on the ground of delay.  That the said vehicle was covered with valid insurance policy as on the date of the theft of the vehicle and on the date of the complaint.  That the conduct of OP in rejecting the claim amounts to deficiency of service.  That the complainant has been put to huge loss and mental agony due to the conduct of OP in repudiating the claim.  Therefore, having no other choice, he has approached the Forum for redressal.      

3. In response to the notice, OPs appeared and filed their version contending in brief as under:

That the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands.  That it is true that, the vehicle in question was insured with OPs and the policy was valid for the period 26.03.2012 to 25.03.2013 and the insured declared value of the vehicle was Rs.21,450/-.  That the liability of the OP if any under the above policy is subject to terms and exclusion of the policy.  That the complainant has informed about the theft of the vehicle to the call centre on 18.06.2012 though the theft had taken place on 25.05.2012.  That on receipt of the claim from the complainant, OP to ascertain the correctness appointed a Private Investigator ‘Daksh Consulting Services & Solutions’ to investigate the matter and to submit the report.  The said investigator on detailed investigation submitted a report to the OP Company.  That during the process of the claim of the complainant, OP noticed that, the theft took place on 25.05.2012 and Police complaint has been lodged only on 06.06.2012 and information to the call center to the OP has been done on 18.06.2012 after lapse of 23 days.  That the inordinate delay on the part of complainant in informing OPs regarding theft is violation of condition No.1 of the policy.  That complainant has failed to lodge a police complaint immediately after theft and also failed to inform OPs immediately upon occurrence of the theft as required under policy conditions.  That OPs, therefore by their letter dated 15.05.2013 repudiated the claim of the complainant as the same is not admissible under the terms and conditions of the policy. 

For the above amongst other reasons, OPs pray for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        5. Complainant to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and relied upon certain documents.  OP in support of the averments made in the complaint tendered the evidence of their Branch Manager Alok Kumar Gupta.  Both parties have submitted their written arguments.  We have also heard oral arguments and perused the authorities relied upon by the complainant.

6. Our answer to the above issues are as under:

REASONS

7. It is not in dispute that, the RC owner of vehicle bearing No.KA-02-HB-9147 of Hero Honda make.  It is also not in dispute that, the said vehicle was insured with OP Insurance Company for the period between 26.03.2012 to 25.03.2013.  It is also not in dispute that the theft of the vehicle has occurred during the validity of the said insurance policy.

8. Admittedly the complainant has not lodged the complaint regarding theft immediately after having come to know about the theft for the reason he went on searching for the vehicle in the surrounding areas and also the day he went to lodge the police complaint, SHO was on duty and did not receive the complaint.  No doubt there is delay in lodging the police complaint since the complaint has been lodged to the police on 06.06.2012 though the theft has occurred on 25.05.2012.  It is also not in dispute that the complainant for the first time informed OP on 18.06.2012, nearly after 23 days from the date of occurrence of theft.

9. After receipt of the claim papers from the complainant, OPs have appointed a Private Investigator by name ‘Daksh Consulting Services & Solutions’ to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the theft of the vehicle reported by complainant.  Though OPs did not produce the report of the said Private Investigator but OPs did not dispute that the said vehicle has been stolen when parked by the side of the road immediately after accident on 25.05.2012.  The sole ground for repudiating the claim of the complainant is delay in informing the OPs about theft and submitting the claim papers.  No doubt there has been a delay of 23 days in reporting the theft to OP.  Now the question is whether the said delay alone can be ground for repudiating the claim, since there is no doubt about the theft of the said vehicle.

10. Complainant admittedly is an illiterate and coolie and one cannot expect him to know each and every details of the terms and conditions governing policy.  The learned advocate for the complainant placed reliance on the judgment reported in AIR 2017 SC page 4836 argued that the delay alone can be reason to repudiate the claim however the claim is genuine.  Perused the said judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme court and while dealing with a similar situation the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

It is common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straightway go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation.  At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle.  It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle.  However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances.  The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds.  Rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy-holders in the insurance industry.  If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay.  It is also necessary to state here that it would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified and found to be correct by the Investigator.  The condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine.  It needs no emphasis that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of consumers.  It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction.  This laudable object should not be forgotten while considering the claims made under the Act.

11. In the said judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made it clear that, in an genuine claim the insurance company shall not repudiate the claim on technical ground.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further made it clear that, the Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation and deserves liberal construction.  In the instant case on hand, it is not in dispute that, the vehicle has been proved to be stolen and the police are unable to trace the vehicle and have submitted ‘c’ report to the court.  The Private Investigation Agency appointed by OP also confirms that the vehicle in question has been stolen as alleged by the complainant.  The claim put forth by the complainant is genuine.  May be because the complainant is illiterate and coolie was not able to inform the OP immediately after the theft.  Absolutely there is no reason to believe that the delay on the part of the complainant in intimating OP is either intentional or deliberate.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that, the OP is not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant only on the technical ground of delay.  It is also pertinent to note that, the OP Company has taken nearly one year to intimate the complainant regarding the repudiation of his claim.  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cited authority, we are of the opinion that, the complainant is successful in proving the deficiency of service on the part of OP.  Therefore, OP has to be directed to honour the claim submitted by the complainant and pay him a sum of Rs.21,450/- being the declared value as on the date of obtaining policy, together with interest from the date of repudiation till the date of actual realization with costs.  The conduct of OPs must have put the complainant to great inconvenience and mental agony.  Therefore, we direct OPs to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-.  Accordingly point Nos.1 & 2 have been answered.

12. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.  

13.  in the result, we proceed to pass the following:

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part.  OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.21,450/- (Twenty One Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty only) together with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of repudiation of the claim till the date of actual realization.  Further OPs shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for having caused him inconvenience and mental agony together with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

OPs shall comply the said order within four weeks from the date of communication of the order.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 13^th day of June 2018)

MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 20.03.2014.

Sri.C.B Rajashekar.

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite parties dated 21.04.2014.

Sri.Alok Kumar Gupta.

Document produced by the Opposite parties - Nil

MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT

Vln*