Date of Filing      : 12.12.2019

                                                                                                                            Date of Disposal: 28.06.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                       .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU. J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A, B.L.                                                                 ..… MEMBER-I

               

CC. No.07/2019

THIS TUESDAY, THE 28th DAY OF JUNE 2022

 

Mr.N.DilliBabu, S/o.Nataraj,

No.166, Ramapuram Colony,

Ramapuram, Thiruthani Taluk,

Thiruvallur District. -631 204.                                                          ……Complainant.

 

                                                 //Vs//

The Branch Manager,

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited,

No.403 L, Samsung Towers, 2nd Floor,

Pantheon Road, Egmore,

Chennai – 600 008.                                                                              …..opposite party. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                                                            :   Mr.A.R.Poovannan , Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite party                                                        :   Mr.B.Siva Kollappan, Advocate. 

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 31.05.2022 in the presence of Mr.A.R.Poovannan Advocate, counsel for the complainant and the opposite party remaining absent for oral argument and upon perusing the documents and evidences and written arguments of both sides this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party/Insurance Company for repudiating the insurance claim of the complainant along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,35,557/- towards cost of vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony, hardship and strain caused to the complainant due to deficiency in service by the opposite party.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

The crux of the complaint is that the complainant owned a motor Bike Royal Enfield 350 CC bearing No.TN-20-CM-0817 registered with RTO Thiruvallur and the said vehicle was found missing when parked in front of Adithiya brand showroom, J.N.Road, Thiruvallur on 02.12.2017.  The complainant and his friend searched his vehicle and immediately informed to the police but no FIR was registered.  However after compulsion by the complainant, finally the Inspector of Police registered the complaint on 12.12.2017 in FIR No.19/2016 under section 379 of IPC. The complainant informed the same to the opposite party on online mode at the earliest but as the Not Traceable Certificate was delayed the claim was filed with the opposite party for the insurance amount with some delay.  However, the opposite party by their letter dated 19.02.2018 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the claim was filed belatedly.  Hence, aggrieved the present complaint was filed for the relief as mentioned above.

Defense of  the Opposite Party :-

 

The written version was filed by the opposite party disputing the allegations by the complainant by submitting that the policy was issued to the complainant subject to terms and conditions stipulated under the policy.  It was submitted that any claim was governed by the terms including due compliance with the conditions precedent specifically stipulated. The requirement for the immediate intimation to the police and the opposite party in writing are the specific conditions to be complied by the complainant after the theft of the vehicle.  It is submitted that the claim was intimated after 25 days and there was also delay in registering the FIR.  Hence, the opposite party contended that there was a gross violation of conditions no1 of the policy.  Thus contending that the complainant is not entitled to any amount from the opposite party and there is no cause of action for the complaint the opposite party sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents were marked as Ex.A1 to A8. On the side of opposite party Ex.B1 was marked along with proof affidavit. 

 Point for consideration:

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party to the complainant?

If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?

 Point No.1:

On the side of the complainant following documents were filed in support of his allegations;

The Driving License of the complainant was marked as Ex.A1;

The retail invoice for the purchase of the vehicle dated 17.08.2017 was marked as Ex.A2;

Registration Certificate Book dated 24.08.2017 was marked as Ex.A3;

Insurance policy issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 19.08.2017 was marked as Ex.A4;

Complaint by a Siranjeevi dated 03.12.2017 was marked as Ex.A5;

FIR No.96/2018 dated 12.12.2017 was marked as Ex.A6;

Not Traceable Certificate issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Law and Order, Thiruvallur Town Police Station dated 17.09.2018 was marked as Ex.A7;

Repudiation letter by the opposite party dated 19.02.2018 was marked as Ex.A8;

On the side of the opposite party the Deputy Manager of TATA AIG General Insurance Company filed proof affidavit and submitted Ex.B1 document in proof of his defence;

Heard the arguments adduced by the learned counsel for the complainant.  The opposite party in spite of sufficient opportunities did not adduce any oral arguments, hence this Commission was constrained without any better option but to consider the written arguments filed by the opposite party as oral arguments for deciding the complaint on merits.

The learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that the theft was immediately informed through online mode which fact was not denied by them in their written version.  Further he also argued that in the policy condition that it is mentioned that immediately theft should be informed but no specific period has been mentioned as to period beyond which could be considered as delay in intimation.  Thus he sought for the complaint to be allowed. 

However on the side of opposite party in his written version specifically mentioned that as the complainant had violated the Condition No. 1 of the policy i.e. no immediate information has been given about the theft to the police or to the opposite party in writing and the complainant has violated the policy condition and hence not entitled to any relief.  In the order passed in Civil Appeal No.6739/2010 the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Parvesh Chander Chadha has held that due to delayed information the insurance company was deprived of its right to conduct an enquiry against the theft of the vehicle and to recover the same. The orders rendered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in  Shriram General Insurance Company  Vs Mahender Jat dated 16.12.2014, in Kulwant Singh Vs The Managing Director, United India Insurance Company Limited & others reported in IV (2014) CPJ 350 (NC) and in Sarfarjudeen Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited rendered by NCDRC reported in I (2015) CPJ 748 (NC) were also cited in support of their case.

Even in a recent decision rendered by the Apex Court in Gurshinder Singh vs Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd, dated 24th January, 2020, the same view has been reiterated in following words;

“It provides, that in case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under the policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co­operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender. The object behind giving immediate notice to the police appears to be that if the police is immediately informed about the theft or any criminal act, the police machinery can be set in motion and steps for recovery of the vehicle could be expedited. In a case of theft, the insurance company or a surveyor would have a limited role. It is the police, who acting on the FIR of the insured, will be required to take immediate steps for tracing and recovering the vehicle. Per contra, the surveyor of the insurance company, at the most, could ascertain the factum regarding the theft of the vehicle”.

 

The above referred decision discusses the consequences of delay in giving information to the insurance company though immediate information to the police was given.  However, in the present case even the FIR was lodged with a delay of ten days and 25 days in reporting the claim to the opposite party and also no convincing reason was given by the complainant for the delay.  It is also specifically mentioned in the repudiation letter dated 19.02.2018 (Ex. A8) that the intimation to the insurer belatedly amounts to breach of policy conditions in the following words;

“We are in receipt of your claim pertaining to alleged theft of your vehicle.

While scrutinizing the vehicle FIR and investigation report, it was found that the alleged date of loss as per your intimation was on 02.12.2017, but as per FIR, you have intimated about the alleged loss to us only on27.12.2017 and the Police Authorities on 12.12.2017.  Hence there was a delay of 10 days in reporting the claim to the Police Authorities and 25 days in reporting the claim to us.

Kindly note that any claim under the policy is governed by terms and condition of insurance.  

As per Condition No.1 of policy of insurance “Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon occurrence of any accident or loss or damage.  In case of theft or criminal act which may be subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to police and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender” 

 

Therefore, it is made clear that the delay in informing the police about the theft of the vehicle is a clear violation of policy conditions as due to the delayed information, the Police and the Insurance Company could not act promptly to recover the vehicle and the chances of dismantling the vehicle or taking the vehicle to far-away place is more.  In such circumstances the repudiation of the claim cannot be constructed as deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Thus we hold that the complainant has failed to prove that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service. Thus point is answered accordingly as against the complainant.  

Point 2:-

As we have held above that the complainant had failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs.  

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  In fact and circumstances no order as to costs.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 28th day of June 2022.

 

           -Sd-                                                                                                               -Sd-  

     MEMBER-I                                                                                                  PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 …………. Driving license of the complainant. Xerox

Ex.A2 17.08.2017 Retail invoice for the purchase of the vehicle. Xerox

Ex.A3 21.07.2017 Registration certificate book. Xerox

Ex.A4 19.08.2017 Insurance policy issued by the op. Xerox

Ex.A5 03.02.2017 Complaint by a Siranjeevi. Xerox

Ex.A6 12.02.2017 FIR No.96/2018. Xerox

Ex.A7 17.09.2018 Non Traceable Certificate. Xerox

Ex.A8 19.02.2018 Repudiation letter by opposite party. Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the opposite party;

 

Ex.B1 19.08.2017 Policy copy with terms and conditions Xerox

                                                                                                                                                   

 

      -Sd-                                                                                                             -Sd-

MEMBER-I                                                                                                 PRESIDENT