Karnataka

Bidar

CC/64/2015

Sri. Chaitanya S/o Abhang Rao Borole - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Br. Manager Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ravikanth. A. Advocate

05 Dec 2016

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                                 C.C.No. 64/2015

 

                                                                                                  Date of filing : 20/08/2015

 

                                                                                             Date of disposal : 05/12/2016

 

 

P R E S E N T:-                    (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                                       President.

    

                                              (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                                 B.A.LL.B.,

                                                                                           Member.

 

                                   

 

                                               

COMPLAINANT/S:              Sri.Chaitanya, s/o Abhang Rao Borole,

                                           Age: 43 years, R/o Holasamudra village,

                                            Tq. Aurad (B), Dist.Bidar-585326.

 

              

 

 

                                        (By Shri. Ravikanth A.N., Advocate )

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-                   1.  The Branch Manager,

                                              Future General India Insurance Co.Ltd.,

                                              2^nd Floor, Kalaburgi Land Mark, T.B Roa,

                                              Deshpande Nagar, Hubli-580029.

                                              

                                        2.   The Agent of

                                                  Future General India Insurance Co.Ltd.,

                                                 Near Oppsite R.T.O Office,Bidar.

 

 

 

                                     

  

 

 

                                        (O.P.No.1 By Shri. Prakash V.M.,Advocate)   

                                        (O.P.No.2-Exparte )

 

 

                                                

 

::   J UD G M  N T  : :

 

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

              This is a complaint file by the above said complainant U/s.12 of the C.P.Act., 1986, against the O.Ps alleging for deficiency in service  on the part of O.Ps.   The gist of the case is as under:

 

2.                 Complainant is registered owner of Motor Vehicle “Mahindra Maxi Truck”bearing Reg.no. KA-38/4929 and same is being used by complainant for his personal use since 2008.  The complainant avers that the said Motor Vehicle was insured with O.ps. Company vide policy beg.No. 2013-V2443495-FCV and the policy was in force from 21-06-2013 to mid night of 20-07-2014.   The package policy was interalia to cover the risk including the vehicle theft.    The complainant further avers that on 21-11-2013 at about 10.30 p.m. he parked his vehicle in his village Holasamudra, near one Chandrakanth Kadam Std and thereafter at about 02-00 to 06-00 a.m. the said vehicle was stolen whereupon, the complainant has lodged the complaint before the Circle Inspector Kamal Nagar Police Station of Taluk Aurad and registered the case under Crime no.229/2013 for the offence punishable under Sec.379 of I.P.C. and in the said complaint itself it was clearly mentioned that the original R.C. Book and other necessary documents like permit, D.L. etc. and other documents were kept in the said vehicle and the complainant has lost the documents also.   This fact is clear from the the FIR and complaint.     Thereafter the concerned police have took the case on hand and started the investigation of the said case but the said vehicle could not be traced and finally the Police have filed the “C “report before the Hon’ble Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Aurad-B on 25-07-2015.   The Hon’ble Court has close the case, and finally the complainant has lost the vehicle.

 

3.         Complainant thereafter, submitted the claim form for getting insurance benefit but, the O.Ps Insurance Company has not paid the amount incurred for theft, the same amounts to deficiency in service by the O.Ps Insurance Company.  Hence the complainant is before this Forum.

 

4.            On receipt of the Court notice, O.P.no.2 has not appeared to this Forum and placed ex-parte.  The O.P. no.1 appeared before the Court through his counsel and filed his version and therein has been claimed that the contents of complaint are all false, frivolous and vexatious in nature, as such the complaint is neither teneble in law nor on facts hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine.   Further the O.P.no.1 has avered that all the contents of para no.6 to 15 of the complaint are all frivolous and vexatious as such specifically and categorically denied and the other averments of the para 6 to the effect of registration of the crime is being admitted.

 

5.                   The O.P.no.2 has avered that the alleged theft has occurred on 21-11-2013, however the complaint has not been roistered the complaint immediately and the complaint has been lodged on 26-11-2013.  The alleged theft was neither intimated to the police nor intimated the same to the O.P. Insurance Company in writing as required under the terms and conditions of the policy.  There is breach of policy conditions by the complainant as such the O.P. Insurer is not liable to indemnify the complainant in respect of the claim.

 

6.                     That after receipt of the belated intimation regarding the alleged theft the respondent-insurer had written a letter to the complainant  requesting him to furnish the documents mentioned at Sl.no.1 to 12 in the letter dt.26-02-2014.   However, all the documents as sought in the letter dated 26-02-2014 has not been submitted by the complainant.  The complainant instead of submitting the documents as sought by the respondent, has got issued a legal notice on 04-07-2014 making a bald allegation against the respondent-Insurance Company and same has been replied by the respondent-Insurance Company and made a request to the complainant to furnish the documents mentioned in the para no.5 of the reply notice dated 25-07-2015.  However, the request has not been fulfilled by the complainant and has filed the present vexatious complaint. 

 

7.                  The respondent insurer denies the occurrence of the theft of the vehicle.  The complainant has created the false story of the theft.  The contents of the complaint dated and the legal notice dated 04-07-2015 discloses that, all he original documents pertaining to the vehicle including the keys have been kept in the vehicle at the time of the alleged theft of the vehicle.  The respondent insurer vide letter dt.26-02-2014 requested to furnish original documents pertaining to the vehicle and original keys and in response to the said notice dated 26-02-2014 legal notice has been issued stating that all the original documents pertaining to the vehicle as well as the keys have been kept in the vehicle and they were stolen along with the vehicle.  The said version of the complainant is improbable to accept as no vehicle owner will keep the original documents and original keys in the vehicle.  The notice dated 04-07-2015 to the effect of the loss of original vehicle documents and original keys fortify the fact that, the vehicle has not been stolen and a false case has been registered to make unlawful gain.

 

8.        That for the settlement of the claim that too when insured vehicle has been stolen the insured is under the contractual and legal obligation to furnish the documents namely 1) copy of lthe driving licence along with the original for verification, 2) Original Certificate of Registration, 3) Permit, 4) Loan challan, 5) Fitness certificate, 6) FIR and complaint, 7) non-traeable certificate from the police or C-summary report, 8) Two original ignition keys, 9) Duly executed and notarized Indemnity bond in favour of the insurer in the format prescribed by the insurer, 10) Duly executed letter of Subrogation bond in favour of the insurer for having surrendered the document and in order to claim the vehicle in the event the same has been traced out subsequent to the settlement of the claim and 11) Duly singed Form No.35.

 

9.              That in order to settle the claim execution and submission of the aforementioned documents is mandatory.  Without the said document the claim cannot be settled.  However, the complainant without understanding the nature of the contract of insurance and without understanding the procedure lay down for settlement of the claim is adamantly insisting respondent-Insurance Company to settle the claim which is not permissible in due process of law.

 

10.          Since the complainant has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements for settlement of the claim as requested in the letter dated 26-02-2014 and legal notice dt.25-07-2015, as such the claim of the complainant has been closed as ‘No Claim’and same has been intimated to the complainant in writing,  and that no cause of action has arisen to file the complaint against the   respondent hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondent no.1 against the complainant and hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

 

11.          Both sides, have filed their evidence affidavits along with documents, written arguments reiterating their respective stands, so also documents listed at the end of this order, distinctly.

 

 

12.         Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the following points arise for our consideration:-

 

1. Does the complainant prove that, there has been a deficiency of service in the part of the Opponents?

 

2. Do the O.Ps prove that, they were justified in refuting the claims of the complainant?

 

3. What order ?

 

 

 

13.           Our answers to the points stated above are as follows:-

 

               1. In the affirmative.

               2. In the negative.

               3. As per the final order, for the following:

 

 

                                                                                                       :: REASONS ::

 14.          The consideration of points 1 and 2 would march simultaneously.  It is born out of record that, the vehicle in question was stolen, so also all the documents like Registration Copy/ Insurance Copy/ D.L/ permit kept inside it.  Contrary to the assertions of the O.P., the owner/Driver is required to keep all the aforesaid documents in the vehicle to produce for inspection of a Police officer or Motor Vehicle Inspector.  When the documents are gone, it was preposterous in the part of the Insurance Company to demand production of the same.  The demand appears to be childish.  As far as the theft is concerned, the matter has been reported to the police, the later have investigated the matter and not being able to trace the vehicle have submitted “C”report.  The case is not closed completely but in animus suspendi.   The policy issued being comprehensive, the Insurance Co. Was bound to reimburse the insured declared value of Rs.2,09,702/- By not doing so they have committed deficiency of service and we answer point no.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following:

                                         

:: ORDER ::

 

   

1.  The complaint is allowed in part.
2.  The O.Ps are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,09,702/- to the complainant together with interest @ 12% p.a. calculated from the date of theft of the vehicle till realisation.

 

3. The Ops are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation owing to the mental agonies sufferings and loss of income hurled at the complainant, together with a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

4. In the event the vehicle is traced out in the future, the Insurance Company would be at liberty to take back the possession of the vehicle from the authorities concerned.

 

 

           d)  Four weeks time granted to comply this order.

 

 

( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 05 ^th day of  December-2016 )

 

 

           Sd/-                                                                                   Sd/-

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

Member.                                                                President.                                                                                            

 

 

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Ex.P.1- Copy of Legal notice.
2. Ex.P.2-Copy of Driving Licence
3. Ex.P.3- ‘B’Extract of Registration Certificate.
4. Ex.P.4-Letter issued by the O.P. to the complainant dt.26/02/2014.
5. Ex.P.5-Insurance Copy of Insurance Policy
6. Ex.P.6- Certified copy of proceedings in the Court of the Civil Judge & JMFC at Aurad-B in Cr.no.d229/2013.

 

 

 Document produced by the Opponent/s

 

1. Ex.R.1 –Policy copy.
2. Ex.R.2- Copy of reply to the legal notice dt. 25-07-2015.
3. Ex.R.3- Copy of letter addressed to the complainant by the O.P.
4. Ex.R4- Copy of reference letter addressed to the complainant by  the O.P.

 

           Sd/-                                                                                   Sd/-

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

       Member.                                                                   President.                    

mv.