Date of filing: 29.10.2020

                                                               Date of Disposal:15.11.2022

 BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                               BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 15^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.891/2020

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

Sri.Elangovan S/o Seethapati,

Aged about 46 years,

R/at No.130,

T.Chennaiah Layout,

Bangalore-560 045.……COMPLAINANT

Rep by M/s R.R.Associates.

V/s

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited,

Registered office:at Peninsula Business Park,

Tower “A”, 15^th Floor, G.K.Marg,

Lower Parel,

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited,

Brigade Mangum,

Unit B-101B, B Wing,

Bangalore,

Karnataka-560 092,

Rep by its Authorized

Officer/Claim Officer.   ……  OPPOSITE PARTY-2

Deputy Manager,

Customer Grievance Redressal,

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited,

Brigade Mangum,

Unit B-101B, B Wing,

Bangalore,

Karnataka-560 092. ……  OPPOSITE PARTY-3

Rep by Sri.Prashant T.Pandit, adv.,

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SRI.SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint under Section-35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking for a direction to the opposite party No.1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.16,700/- the value of vehicle along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to the complainant for the loss of the vehicle and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony suffered by him and cost of this complaint and such other reliefs as this commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case.   

2. It is not in dispute that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle Hero Honda Moto-cycle Splendor Pro bearing Registration No.KA-03 HM-6123.  Further, the said vehicle was insured with opposite party no.1 for the period from 29.01.2019 to 28.01.2020.  Further, it is not in dispute that the opposite parties had repudiated the claim of the complainant for the loss of the vehicle as it was stolen on the ground that the complainant had lodged the complaint after 5 days delay of the alleged theft.

3. To prove the case, the complainant has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.P1 to P10 documents.  The representative of opposite parties No.1 to 3 has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.R1 to R3 documents. 

       4. Counsel for the complainant has filed written arguments with citations.

5. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:

i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties ?

    ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the 

         compensation as sought ?

     iii) What order ?

  6.   Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :  In affirmative

Point No.2 :  Partly in affirmative  

Point No.3 :  As per the final order for the following;

REASONS

7.POINT NO.1:- The complainant and the representative of opposite party no.1 to 3 have reiterated the fact stated in their respective pleadings, in the affidavits filed in the form of their evidence in chief.  According to PW1 on 24.12.2019 he had parked the said vehicle in front of his house and on the next day i.e., 25.12.2019 around 6.30 a.m he found missing of the vehicle and had been to Kadugondanahalli Police Station and informed them orally about the theft and the police in turn informed that they would make necessary entries in their register and directed the complainant to verify with relatives and friends.  Accordingly, he made enquiry with his relatives and friends and informed the same to the police on the next day itself and the police have registered the complaint on 30.12.2019 in crime No.520/2019 for the offence punishable under Section-379 of IPC.  To substantiate that the complainant has produced EX.P3 copy of FIR, EX.P4 the certified copy of the charge sheet in the form of ‘C’ report, EX.P5 the certified copy of the order sheet and it appears that the court had accepted ‘C’ report. EX.P6 is the Legal notice dt.28.08.2020 issued by the complainant through his advocate to the opposite parties requesting to honour the claim of the complainant.  EX.P13 is the email correspondence made by the complainant with opposite parties.  The complainant has also produced certificate under Section-65B of Indian Evidence Act.  EX.P2 the copy of the policy indicates that the policy was in force from 29.01.2019 to 28.01.2020.

8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that since immediately the complaint has not been lodged there is suspicion with regard to the complainant. 

9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant is an illiterate person and even though he went to the police station the police did not register the complaint.  Further, the counsel submits that because of delay in lodging the complaint the benefits available in law to the complainant cannot be rejected.  In support of it, the counsel relies the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.653/2020 in between Gurshindar Singh V/s Shiram General Insurance Company limited and another dt.24.01.2020.  It is observed in the said judgement that the word “Immediately” cannot be construed narrowly so as to deprive claimant the benefit of the settlement of genuine claim, particularly when the delay was explained.  It is the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that since the complaint has not been lodged immediately it is the violation on condition No.1 of the policy.  The counsel for opposite parties did not point out the said condition as it violates.  However, it is the principle that the complaint shall be lodged immediately and any delay infers suspicion.  In the case on hand, the complainant had explained about the delay.  Hence, we feel the opposite parties should have entertained the claim of the complainant. No other grounds have been urged by the opposite parties.  Hence, we answer this point in affirmative. 

10.POINT NO.2:- The complainant claimed IDV of the vehicle of Rs.16,703/-.  On perusal of Ex.P2 the IDV of the vehicle is shown at Rs.16,703/- when the policy was issued on 29.01.2019.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for the IDV of the vehicle.  Further, condition No.4 of Section-1 of the policy contemplates that the IDV shall be treated as the ‘Market Value’ throughout the policy period without any further depreciation for the purpose of total loss(TL)/Constructive Total Loss (CTL) for claims.  The opposite parties had rejected the claim of the complainant vide letter dt.14.03.2020.  Ex.R3 is the copy of the repudiation letter dt.14.03.2020.  Counsel for the opposite parties has produced EX.R3 with regard to the condition No.1 of Auto Secure Commercial Vehicle package Policy.  It indicates that “Notice shall be in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss”.  The said contention applies to commercial vehicle package policy.  Hence, the opposite parties shall pay interest at the rate of              9% p.a. from 14.03.2020 till payment. Further, the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant.   Accordingly, we answer this point partly in affirmative.

11.POINT NO.3:- In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following;

Complaint is allowed in part.

The opposite party No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.16,703/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to the complainant from 14.03.2020 till realization.

Further the opposite party no.1 to 3 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost. 

The opposite party No.1 to 3 shall comply the order within 30 days. In case, the opposite party No.1 to 3 fail to comply the order within the said period, the above said amount of Rs.10,000/- carries interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 15^th day of November, 2022)                                            

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•  

Witness examined for the complainants side:

Sri.Elangovan, the complainant has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

1.RC of Complainant bearing No.KA03HM6123.

2.Policy bearing No.015936672100.

3.Certified copy of FIR in crime No.0520/2019.

4. Certified copy of the charge sheet dt.05.10.2020.

5. Order sheet of Crime No.0520/2019.

6. Copy of the legal notice dt.28.08.2020.

7. Three postal receipts.

8. Three postal acknowledgements.

Witness examined for the opposite party side: 

Sri.Nagarajan Padmanabhan, representative of opposite party No.1 to 3 has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the Opposite Party side:

1.True copy of the policy with terms and condition (policy bearing No.0159366721).

2.Copy of the letter dt.27.02.2020 and 14.03.2020.

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•