Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/9/2016

Peddanna T.N. S/o. Nageshappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Parthalinga R.N.

26 Sep 2016

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON : 01/02/2016

     DISPOSED ON: 26/09/2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

 

CC. NO. 9/2016 DATED:  26th September 2016

 

PRESENT :-     SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH      PRESIDENT                                      B.A., LL.B.,

                        SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY             MEMBER

                                         B.A., LL.B.,                   

COMPLAINANT	Peddanna. T.N, S/o Nageshappa, R/o Kammasamudra, Jajur Post, Challakere. Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri. Parthalinga R.N, Advocate)
OPPOSITE PARTY	The Branch Manager, Branch Office, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Jagalur Mahalingappa Arcade, Near KSRTC Bus Stand, B.D. Road, Chitradurga.      (Rep by Sri. L. Madhusudhana,  Advocate)

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH. PRESIDENT.

ORDER

The complainant has filed a complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the OP for a direction to the OP to pay the ID value of the vehicle for Rs.28,971/- and Rs.10,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 18% p.a  and such other reliefs.  

2.     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that, he is the RC owner of motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-16/V-3591 and the same has been insured with the OP under policy No.390102/31/14/6201493323, which was valid for the period from 16.07.2014 to 15.07.2015 covering the risk of own damage for Rs.28,971/-.  It is further submitted that, on 20.11.2014 at about 7-00 PM the said vehicle has been stolen when it was parked infront of Green Park Hotel, Chitradurga.  Immediately, complainant searched for the vehicle but, it was not traced.  Finally, he went to gave a complaint to the Chitradurga Town Police, but the said police intimated to search for the vehicle at least for 15 days and then give a complaint.  After 15 days he gave a complaint in writing to the Town Police Station, Chitradurga on 12.12.2014.  Complainant has given a intimation of theft of vehicle to the OP orally on 20.11.2014, for that OP has intimated that, they need a complaint.  Complainant obtained certified copy of the complaint on 12.12.2014 and given to the OP for that, OP intimated the complainant to wait up to file C" report".  On 01.08.2015 concerned Police filed a "C" report to the JMFC, Chitradurga.  The complainant has produced "C" report, FIR, entire Police papers, RC, Policy, DL and entire papers to the OP to settle the claim.  But, the OP has not settled the claim but, issued a notice on 20.10.2015 stating that, his claim has been closed, which is a deficiency of service.  It is further submitted that, as per guidelines of the Supreme Court, when there is violation of policy terms and conditions and M.V. Act, the OP has to settle the claim on non standard basis, the OP cannot repudiate the claim only for the reason that the complainant has not intimated the theft of the vehicle immediately to the OP.  The conduct of the OP in repudiating the claim made by the complainant amounts to deficiency of service so, he sustained financial loss and mental agony and etc., and prayed for allow the complaint.

 

3. On service of notice OP appeared through Sri. L. Madhusudhan, Advocate and filed version admitting about the fact that, the complainant is the RC owner of  motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-16 V 3591  and the same was insured with the OP for the period from 14.07.2014 to 15.07.2015 for an IDV of Rs.28,971/- subject to the terms and conditions.  It is denied that, the said motor cycle has been stolen on 20.11.2014 infront of Green Park Hotel, when it was properly locked.  It is denied that, the Police Authority asked to give 15 days time to trace the vehicle and then give complaint.  It is further denied that, complainant intimated the OP orally on 20.11.2014 and OP asked to furnish complaint copy and after receipt of the complaint copy they have asked him to wait till furnishing of "C" report.  It is false to state that, OP did not settle the claim as per law and he is entitled to get the claim on non-standard basis.  It is further submitted that, the theft of the motor cycle occurred on 20.11.2014 and the complaint has been lodged with the Town Police, Chitradurga on 12.12.2014 i.e., after a lapse of 21 days from the date of occurrence of complaint and the complainant intimated about the theft of his motor cycle to the OP on 18.08.2015 after a lapse of 9 months.  Despite the same, OP by its letter dated 18.08.2015 asked the complainant to produce all the relevant documents to consider the maintainability of the claim but, the same were not complied with by him.  It is further submitted that, the parties are governed by the terms and conditions of the policy and in the policy it is mentioned that, in case of theft of the vehicle, please intimate the Police immediately for lodging FIR and inform the insurance company immediately.  Therefore, there is no cause of action is arise to file this complaint  and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

        4. Complainant himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and documents are marked at Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-4. 

5.     On behalf of OP one Sri. Palanna, the Administrative Officer of OP examined as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and Ex.B-1 document has been marked.   

 

        6. Written arguments and filed and oral Arguments heard.

 

7. Now the Points that arise for our consideration for the decision of the complaint are that:

 

Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proves that, OP has committed deficiency of service in settling the claim made by him and he is entitled for compensation as stated in his complaint?

 

Point No.2:- What order?

 

        8. Our findings on the above points are as follows:

 

        Point No.1:- Negative.

        Point No.2:- As per the final order.

 

                                        ::REASONS::

 

9. Point No. 1:- It is not in dispute that, complainant is the RC owner of motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-16/V-3591.  The said motor cycle has been insured with the OP under policy No.390102/31/14/6201493323 for the period from 16.07.2014 to 15.07.2015 covering the risk of own damage for Rs.28,971/-.  That on 20.11.2014 at about  7-00 PM the said vehicle has been stolen when it was parked infront of Green Park Hotel, Chitradurga.  As it was not traced, he filed a written complaint to the Town Police Station, Chitradurga on 12.12.2014 i.e., after a lapse of 21 days and intimated the OP after 9 months from the date of occurrence of theft of the vehicle, which is violation of terms and condition of the policy.  On 01.08.2015 concerned Police filed a "C" report to the JMFC, Chitradurga.  The complainant has produced "C" report, FIR, entire Police papers, RC, Policy, DL and entire papers to the OP to settle the claim.  But, the OP has not settled the claim and issued a notice on 20.10.2015 informing that, the claim of the complainant has been closed. It is argued by the complainant that, as per guidelines of the Supreme Court, when there is violation of policy terms and conditions and M.V. Act, the OP has to settle the claim on non standard basis and it cannot repudiate the claim only for the reason that the complainant has not intimated the theft of the vehicle immediately to the OP.    

 

10.   So, as on the date of accident, insurance policy was in force.  It is the main contention of the complainant that he made a claim to the OP by producing all the relevant documents and in spite of policy was in force, OP has not settled the claim on the ground that, complainant has not intimated about theft of the vehicle well in time and OP has to settle the claim on non standard basis.   

 

        11.  In support of his contentions,  complainant has relied on his affidavit evidence in which he has reiterated the contents of complaint.  Complainant has also relied on documents like certified copy of FIR filed by Town Police, Chitradurga marked as Ex.A-1, Certified copy of the letter given by the complainant to the Town Police, Chitradurga on 12.12.2014 requesting them to trace the theft of his motor cycle marked as Ex.A-2, Certified copy of the "C" final report submitted by Town Police, Chitradurga marked as Ex.A-3, Certified copy of spot mahazar marked as Ex.A-4.      

       

In support of his contention, complainant also relied on the decision reported in 2008 SAR (Civil) 484 SC, the same is not applicable to the present case on hand.  

 

 12. On the other hand, it is argued by the Advocate for OP that, the complainant is the RC owner of  motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-16 V 3591  and the same was insured with the OP for the period from 14.07.2014 to 15.07.2015 for an IDV of Rs.28,971/- subject to the terms and conditions.  It is vehemently argued that, the said motor cycle has been stolen on 20.11.2014 infront of Green Park Hotel, when it was parked and the complainant given a written complaint on 12.12.2014 i.e, after 21 days of occurrence of the theft of vehicle and to the OP on 18.08.2015 after a lapse of 9 months.  Despite the same, OP by its letter dated 18.08.2015 asked the complainant to produce all the relevant documents to consider the maintainability of the claim but, the same were not complied with by him.  It is argued that, under the head "in the event of theft of vehicle, it is mentioned that, in case of theft of the vehicle, please intimate the Police immediately for lodging FIR and inform the insurance company immediately.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to claim any amount under the policy. 

       13.   In support of its contention,  OP has relied on affidavit of its Administrative Officer, in which he has reiterated the contents of version.  OP has also relied on document like certified copy of the policy marked as Ex.B-1.

In support of its contention, OP has also relied on the judgment passed in Revision Petition No.2479/2015 dated 11.06.2016 passed by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi wherein at para 16 it has been observed that:

"For the reasons stated hereinabove, we have no hesitation in holding that the insured was under a contractual obligation to intimate the theft of the vehicle to the insurer immediately after the said theft came to his knowledge and mere intimating the police or lodging an FIR does not amount to sufficient compliance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  Since admittedly, there was substantial delay in intimating the theft of the vehicle to the insurance company in both these cases, the insurer was entitled to repudiate the claim on account of the aforesaid default on the part of the insured."   

 

The above judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi is helpful to the case of the OP.

14.   On the rival contentions of both the parties and on perusal of the complaint, version and documents, it is seen that, the complainant is the RC owner of motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-16 V 3591 and the same was insured with the OP under policy No.390102/31/14/6201493323.  The said police was valid for the period from 14.06.2014 to 15.07.2015.  OP admits about issuance of policy to the above said motor cycle.  Here the question is whether the complainant lodge a complaint before the concerned police and intimated to the OP about the theft of his vehicle well in time.  The theft of vehicle was took place on 20.11.2014, complainant lodge a complaint before the police on 12.12.2014  after lapse f 212 days and intimated about the same to the OP on 18.08.2015 i.e., after a lapse of 9 months, which is violation of policy terms and conditions.  The OP has taken a contention that, complainant has not intimated about the theft of his vehicle well in time.  OP has produced the copy of policy, in the said policy it is very clear that, "in case of theft of the vehicle, please intimate the Police immediately for lodging FIR and inform the insurance company immediately." According to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in Rev. Petition No.2479/2015 in the case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Jai Prakash, the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.  So, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service committed by the OP.  Therefore, the judgment quoted by the OP is applicable and the citation given by the complainant is not applicable to the case on hand and the facts and circumstances of case are different to the present case on hand.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, there is a no deficiency of service on the part of OP/insurance company.  Hence, the complainant is not entitled for compensation as claimed.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as Negative to the complainant.

 

15.  Point No.2:- For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following.

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.

 

        (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 26/09/2016 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures.)

 

 

 

MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Complainant by filing affidavit evidence taken as PW-1

Witness examined on behalf of Complainant:

                                                -Nil-

On behalf of OPs one Sri. Palanna, Administrative Officer of OP by filing affidavit evidence taken as DW-1

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

 -Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Certified copy of FIR filed by Town Police, Chitradurga
02	Ex-A-2:-	Certified copy of the letter given by the complainant to the Town Police, Chitradurga on 12.12.2014 requesting them to trace the theft of his motor cycle
03	Ex-A-3:-	Certified copy of the "C" final report submitted by Town Police, Chitradurga
04	Ex-A-4:-	Certified copy of spot mahazar

 

Documents marked on behalf of Opponent:

01

Ex-B-1:-

Certified copy of Policy

 

 

 

MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

Rhr.