Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/52/2014

M.Thippeswamy S/o. Muttappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Shri.S.G.Dileep Kumar

16 Jun 2015

ORDER

   COMPLAINT FILED ON :21/07/2014

              DISPOSED ON: 16/06/2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

 

CC. NO. 52/2014 DATED:16th JUNE 2015

 

PRESENT :-     SRI.H.RAMASWAMY                MEMBER

                                B.Com., LL.B.,(Spl.)

                        SMT.G.E.SOWBHAGYALAKSHMI, MEMBER

                                B.A., LL.B.,

 

COMPLAINANT	M. Thippeswamy, S/o Muttappa,R/o Hariyabbe, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District   Sri. (Rep by Sri. S.G. Dileepkumar,  Advocate)
OPPOSITE PARTY	The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Jayadeva Complex, B.H. Road, Tumkur-572101.   (Rep by Sri. B.M. Ravichandra,  Advocate)

 

SMT.G.E. SOWBHAGYALAKSHMI, MEMBER.

ORDER

 

The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the opposite party (here in called OP) for grant of compensation of Rs.80,000/- with 18% interest on account of theft of his motor cycle bearing Registered No.KA 16/X 2935 and to grant court cost and such other reliefs.

 

2.     Brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant is the owner of motor cycle bearing Registered No.KA 16 X 2935 Engine No.HA10ENCHH 31882 Chassis No.MBLAH10AWCHH 83486 Model 2012, Hero Passion Pro and the same was insured with the opposite party, the policy was in force as on the date of accident.  The opposite party collected up to date premium to cover the risk of the policy, the policy vide policy bearing No.0714003112P300745035 and it is valid from 25/09/2012 to 24/09/2013.  And the other vehicular documents such as RC, FC, permit etc, are in order.

 

3.     That on 29/05/2013 the complainant after completion of his work at KEB Office, Hiriyur moving by riding his motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA 16 X 2935 from Hiriyur T.B Circle towards Chitradurga, when the said vehicle proceeding near T.B. Circle, Hiriyur one person showing his hand requesting him to drop, as per request, the complainant allowed the said person, and he is sitting in the said motor cycle as pillion rider, when the said motor cycle proceeding near Burujanaroppa gate, at about 5-00 PM the complainant standing his motor cycle and go to hotel, when the complainant come out from the hotel, and he surprised that his standing motor cycle was not at the spot, some of the thief have stolen the said motor cycle, the complainant searching his motor cycle going towards Hiriyur, but the motor cycle was not traced out,  then the complainant lodged the complaint to the Aimangala Police Station, the said police registered a case in Cr.No.87/2013 for the offence u/Sec.379 IPC, the said police also making their best effort to trace out his motor cycle, but he unable to know that, the said fact was not intimated to the opposite party, then the complainant approached his Advocate, his counsel informed that, immediately give the intimation to the opposite party, after knowing the fact, the complainant has contacted the opposite party along with his all the vehicular documents, also confidence and hence, the delay is caused in filing the complaint in time.  The delay in filing the complaint is not intentional and it is bonafide mistake. 

4.     The complainant was intimated theft of his motor cycle bearing No.KA 16 X 2935 to the opposite party, along with all the vehicular documents and police documents, after the intimation, they have issued endorsement stating that, there is no valid DL license as on 29.05.2013 you have produced the valid driving license effective from 05/09/2013 to 04/09/2018 and stated that, the delay in submitting the report of theft that vehicle stolen on 29/05/2013 whereas the complainant informed to the OP office on 20/08/2013 the bonafide reasons, in causing delay in submitting the report to the OP as stated hereby before the delay in intimated the report to the OP is not intentional and it is bonafide mistake. 

5.     After furnished all the vehicular documents to the OP, as per the letter of OP dated 27/12/2013 the complainant awaiting to receive the compensation.  But surprisingly the OP issued reply notice in REF No.OD/50/13 dated 27/12/2013 stating that claim does not fall within the purview of consideration of settlement and hence, we propose to repudiate the claim and disclaim our liability, thereby the complainant suffered lot, put into great mental shock, agony and pain and issued untenable, false, created evasive endorsement to the complainant.  the OP's who is not deserved to settle the legal claim has sent a surprise endorsement reference above said number. 

6.     The OP has bound to indemnify the theft without delay when the matter immediately impact with him.  He never discharged his deliberate service, by the deficiency of service of the OP's the complainant sustained financial loss of Rs.10,000/- and without reasonable ground opponent has refused the claim.  Hence, this complaint.  

7.     The complainant has demanded and requested the opponent to settle the claim or otherwise to sent back the certified copies of the criminal case papers, policy copy and other relevant documents but the OP's neglected to comply the request, the OP has deliberately fails to discharge his service than the desired service.

8.     The cause of action for this complaint aroses on 29/05/2013 and the complainant lodged the complaint to the concerned police on 05/06/2013 and in subsequent, since the complaint is in time. 

9.     On the service of notice, the OP appeared through his counsel and filed version and OP stated that the allegations of the complaint which are not specifically admitted in this version are all hereby denied as false.  The allegations made in para 2 to 11 are hereby denied as false. 

10.   OP further taken contentions that, the complainant has not approached the Hon'ble Forum with clean hands as required under Consumer Protection Act and law of Insurance and also under policy issued by OP under M.V Act for the following grounds, reasons and circumstances. 

a.     OP has admitted that, the complainant is the R.C owner of Motor Cycle bearing Engine No.H31882 and its Chassis No.H83486 and the said Motor Cycle bearing Engine No.H31882 and its Chassis No.H83486 has been insured with OP through Motor Cycle / Scooter package policy No.0714003112P300745035 for the period 25/09/2012 to 24/09/2013 and the said Motor Cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-16-X-2935 vehicle value (IDV) is Rs.49,515/- only towards insured declared value and the said policy will be in force as per the terms and conditions of the policy, MV Act conditions and confirmation of 64 VB. 

b.     That the complainant has intimated the theft of the vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-16/X-2935 on 20/08/2013 by his intimation letter to the Tumkur opponent insurance company and the theft of the vehicle is on 29/05/2013 and the opponent insurance company has issued claim form to the complainant and asked to fill the same and also to enclose vehicle documents like policy, RC, DL and also necessary documents like police documents and for that the complainant has given his claim form along with all documents except DL on 20/08/2013 to the opponent insurance company and also for that the opponent insurance company has sent a letter to the complainant for production of DL, for that he has produced the same at later stage and as per the said document he has obtained driving license to drive Motor Cycle with gear from 05/09/2013 wherein the theft of the vehicle is on 29/05/2013 wherein he did not have valid DL to drive the motor cycle with gear on the date of alleged theft of vehicle and also there is a delay of 83 days in intimating the theft of the vehicle to the opponent insurance company. 

c.     For that opponent insurance company has repudiated the claim of the complainant on 27/12/2013 since the complainant has lodged a FIR on 05/06/2013 wherein theft of the vehicle is on 29/05/2013 i.e., the complainant has given a complaint to the concerned police after lapse of 8 days from the date of theft of the vehicle and also the complainant has intimated the theft of the vehicle to the opponent insurance company on 20/08/2013 i.e., after lapse of 83 days from the date of theft of the vehicle and also there is no valid DL to the complainant at the time of theft of the vehicle for riding the vehicle.  That means the complainant has violated the condition No.1 of the said Motor policy which runs as follows:

i.      "Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require.  Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured.  Notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy.  In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender". 

 

11.   That as per the said condition the complainant has approached concerned Aimangala Police Station, Chitradurga with a delayed (8 days) in lodging the complaint to the concerned police and also intimated the theft of the vehicle to the opponent insurance company on 20/08/2013 which is after lapse of 83 days from the date of theft of the vehicle.  Hence, it is a violation of policy condition by the complainant. 

12.   That the complainant has carried an unknown pillion rider in his motor cycle and he parked his motor cycle at Burujanaroppa Gate and went to have a tea alone by leaving the Motor Cycle key in Motor Cycle and unknown person.  The insured has not taken any precautionary measure to safeguard his motor cycle and he himself has allowed to stolen his Motor Cycle.  

13.   For the above said reasons it shows the complainant has filed this complaint with flimsy and untenable grounds without any proper reasons and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opponent and  prayed for  dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

        14. Complainant himself examined as Pw-1 by filing affidavit evidence and filed documents, the same was got marked as Ex A-1 to A-4.

        15. On behalf of OP one Shri D. Parthasarathi S/o Dhanpal, Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Davangere examined as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and filed document and the same was got marked as Ex B-1.

        16. Both the parties have filed written arguments and oral arguments also heard.

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

 

Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proves that he has obtained the policy to his vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-16/X 2935 from the OP and it is valid from 25/09/2012 to 24/09/2013 and he was intimated the theft of his motor cycle to the OP as per the terms and conditions of the policy and OP has illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant and committed deficiency in service and entitled for the reliefs?

 

Point No.2:- What order?

       

18. Our findings on the above points are as below.

 

        Point No.1:- Negative.

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

 

                                ::REASONS::

 

       19. Point No. 1:- Complainant is the RC owner of the motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-16 X/2935 Engine No.HA10ENCHH 31882 Chassis No.MBLAH10AWCHH 83486 Model 2012, Hero Passion Pro and the same was insured with the OP, it is valid from 25/09/2012 to 24/09/2013, it is not in dispute.  It is the contention of the complainant that, on 29/05/2013 the complainant after completion of his duty at KEB Office, Hiriyur, moving by riding his motor cycle from Hiriyur to Chitradurga he was giving a drop to a person he is travelling as a pillion rider when the said motor cycle proceeding near Burujanaroppa gate at about 5.00 PM the complainant parked his motor cycle and go to hotel when the complainant came out from the hotel he surprised that, his vehicle was not at the spot.  Some of the thief have stolen the said motor cycle.  While searching his motor cycle the same was not traced out.  After that the complainant by making his best efforts searching his vehicle at various places but, his vehicle was not traced out.  That on 05.06.2013 the complainant lodged a complaint to the Aimangala Police, for the theft of his vehicle the said police registered a case in Cr.No.87/2013 for an offence punishable u/Sec. 379 of IPC.  The concerned police searching at various places but, they could not traced out, thereby complainant suffered lot and put into great mental shock and agony. 

20.   The complainant was intimating the theft of his vehicle to the OP along with vehicular documents and police documents.  After the intimation, OP have issued an endorsement stating that there is no valid DL as on 29/05/2013 you have produced the valid DL effective from 05/09/2013 to 04/09/2018 and stated that, the delay in submitting the report of theft that vehicle stolen on 29/05/2013 whereas the complainant informed to the OP office on 20/08/2013 the bonafide reasons, in causing delay in submitting the report to the OP as stated hereby before the delay in intimated the report to the OP is not intentional and it is bonafide mistake. 

21.   The complainant further stated that, OP issued reply notice in REF No.OD/50/13 dated 27/12/2013 stating that claim does not fall within the purview of consideration of settlement and hence, we propose to repudiate the claim and disclaim our liability, thereby the complainant suffered lot, put into great mental shock, agony and pain and issued untenable, false, created evasive endorsement to the complainant.

22.   Complainant further stated that the OP has bound to indemnify the theft without delay when the matter immediately impact with him.  He never discharged his deliberate service, by the deficiency of service of the OP's the complainant sustained financial loss of Rs.10,000/- and without reasonable ground opponent has refused the claim, the complainant has requested the OP to settle the claim but, the OP neglected the comply the request and deliberately failed to discharge his service, thereby OP has committed deficiency in service and prayed for allowing of the complaint with cost. 

23.   On perusal of the documents like Ex.A-1 certified true copy of the FIR issued by Aimangala Police, Hiriyur, Ex.A-2 complaint dated 05.06.2013 given by the complainant to the Aimangala Police. On verifying the Ex.A-1 and A-2 it discloses that, complainant's vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-16 X/2935 was stolen on 29/05/2013 at about 5.00 PM near Burujanaroppa Gate, Hiriyur Taluk and it discloses that on 05.06.2013 at about 4.00 PM the complainant was given written complaint to the Aimangala Police to trace his vehicle.  The above said Police have registered a case in Cr.No.87/2013 u/Sec.379 IPC.  On perusal of Ex.A-3 letter dated 27/12/2013 issued by the OP to the complainant it discloses that, as on the date of theft of the vehicle, the complainant has no valid DL to drive the said motor cycle and also vehicle was stolen on 29/05/2013 but the complainant has intimated the same fact to the OP on 20/08/2013.  On perusal of Ex.A-4 the copy of the policy it discloses that OP has collected the premium from the complainant sum of Rs.1,203/- dated 25/09/2012 and  issued the policy it shows that the IDV value of the vehicle was Rs.49,515/- and the same was effected from 25/09/2012 18:15 Hrs to mid night of 24/09/2013 it is not in dispute. 

24.   The Advocate for the complainant argued that, OP has issued the policy to the complainant's vehicle by collecting a requisite premium on 25/09/2012 as per the policy and the IDV value of the vehicle was Rs.49,515/- and on 29/05/2013 the complainant riding his vehicle from Hiriyur TB Circle to Chitradurga one person requesting to drop him.  As per the request complainant dropped the said person and when the said vehicle proceeding near Burujanaroppa Gate at about 5.00 PM the complainant parked his vehicle and went to Hotel.  When the complainant came out from the hotel he surprised that, his vehicle was not at the spot, some of the thieves have stolen the motor cycle.  By making his best efforts to search his motor cycle at various places, the same was not traced.  Complainant gave a complaint to the Aimangala Police on 05/06/2013 and the above said police registered a case in Cr.No.87/2013 u/Sec.379 of IPC.  Till today the police have not traced the motor cycle.  The complainant intimated the theft of his motor cycle to the OP.  OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant, thereby OP committed a deficiency in service. At the time of theft of the vehicle the policy was in force.  As per the policy conditions, OP is liable to pay the compensation and prayed for allowing of the complaint with cost and relied on a decisions reported in:

CTJ 680 (SC) 2008 National Insurance Company Vs. Nithin Khandelwal online Xerox copy.

 

Another decision reported in Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchakula

 

Ramesh Yadav Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., online Xerox copy.

 

The above said decisions are not aptly applicable to the present case of the complainant.  

 

25.   On the other hand, on behalf of OP one Shri. Parthasarathi, Divisional Manager examined as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence.  While admitting complainant obtained insurance policy bearing No.0714003112P300745035 from the OP for a period from 25/09/2012 to 24/09/2013.  The IDV of the said motor cycle sum of Rs.49,515/-.  The said policy will be in force as per the terms and conditions of the policy and the copy of the policy got marked as Ex.B-1.  On perusal of the Ex.B-1 policy was in force at the time of theft of complainant's motor cycle.  Advocate for OP much argued that, complainant has intimated the theft of the vehicle bearing No.KA-16 X-2935 on 20/08/2013 to the OP after lapse of 83 days from the date of theft of his motor cycle and also there is no valid DL to the complainant at the time of theft of the vehicle to drive the same.  Complainant has violated the condition No.1 of the motor policy and also theft of the complainant's vehicle was on 29/05/2013.  Complainant has lodged a complaint on 05/06/2013 to the Police after lapse of 8 days from the date of theft of the vehicle.  As per the condition No.1 of the policy insured shall be given intimation in writing to the insurance company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require.  As per the said condition, complainant has lodged complaint after lapse of 8 days and also intimated the theft of the vehicle to the OP on 20/08/2013 which is after lapse of 83 days from the date of theft of the vehicle.  It is violation of policy condition by the complainant.  Therefore, OP has rightly to repudiated the claim of the complainant and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP towards the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost and relied on the following decisions:

 

2012(2) CPR 12 (NC)

Rajesh Kumar Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

 

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21 – Insurance – Theft of truck – Claim repudiated as 'No claim'- Complaint dismissed by State Commission in appeal – Lodging of FIR in case of theft should be immediate concern for any owner of vehicle and under terms of policy he is required to inform insurance company and file claim at the earliest – On both these counts, there are no plausible explanations – State Commission rightly held it against petitioner/complainant – Revision Petition dismissed.

 

Result: Revision Petition dismissed.

 

III (2003) CPJ 77 (NC)

 

Devendra Singh Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.

 

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) – Insurance – Repudiation of claim – Violation of policy terms – Theft of vehicle reported to police after 4 days and to Insurance Company after about a month – Complaint dismissed by lower Forums – No interference required in revision – Repudiation justified.

 

 

 National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi

 

First Appeal No.321 of 2005

 

(From the order dated 03.06.2005 in C.D. Case No.60 of 2001 of Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttak)

 

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Trilochan Jane

 

 

 

2013(1) CPR 363 (NC)

 

Mr. Sayyed J.A Wadood Vs The Manager, United India Insurance Co.

 

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 17, 19, 21 and 24-A - Insurance – Theft of vehicle – District Forum allowed complaint and directed respondent/OP to pay Rs.3,84,000/-with 9% p.a interest – State Commission set aside order of District Forum and dismissed complaint – There was no intimation to OP at least upto 15 days from date of commission of theft – Complaint should have been filed within a period of two years from theft or from repudiation of claim as complaint has been filed without any application under Section 24-A, State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint as complaint being time barred – Order passed by State Commission does not call for any interference – Revision Petition dismissed.

 

2013(1) CPR 394 (NC)

 

Shri Kuldeep Singh Vs IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

 

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 15, 17, 19, and 21 - Insurance – Theft of vehicle – Claim of complainant closed as "No Claim"- Complaint allowed by District Forum _ Order of District Forum was reversed and set aside by State Commission vide its impugned order – In case of theft, matter should be reported immediately – Information to Insurance Company was given after twelve days from date of alleged accident – No FIR was recorded in concerned police station on date of theft – There was violation of condition of policy – State Commission rightly non-suited complainant – Revision Petition dismissed.

 

 

2014(2) CPR 328 (NC)

 

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Shri Rajesh Yadav

 

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 15, 17, 19, and 21 – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 66(1) - Insurance – Theft of vehicle – District Forum directed insurance company to pay sum of Rs.4,40,326/- and awarded sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation – Having permit for a particular place, is a necessary condition and its violation, does not lead to complainant to have compensation on 'non-standard' basis – Complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score only – Delay in informing insurance company was fatal as it deprived insurance company of its legitimate right to enquire into alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavor to recover the same – Impugned orders set aside and complaint dismissed.

 

Result: Revision Petition allowed.

 

2014(1) CPR 663 (NC)

 

Sagar Kumar Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

 

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 15, 17, 19, and 21 – Insurance – Theft of car – Since there was delay of about six months in informing respondent about theft of vehicle, it is a clear cut violation of mandatory terms and conditions of insurance policy – Order of dismissal of complaint passed by State Commission affirmed.

 

26.   The above said decisions are aptly applicable to the case of OP.  On perusal of the above said decisions, the complainant is bound to inform the theft of the vehicle to the OP company immediately.  But in the above said complaint, the complainant has not informed the theft of his vehicle to the OP company immediately.  On perusal of the documents, there is 82 days delay in informing the theft of the vehicle to the OP company and also complainant has filed the complaint to the police after lapse of 7 days from the date of theft.  As per policy condition No.1, it is the duty of the complainant to inform about the theft of the vehicle to the OP company immediately.  It is clearly shows that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Accordingly the OP has rightly to repudiated the claim of the complainant.     On verifying the Ex.A-1 and A-2 it discloses that the complainant has carried unknown pillion rider in his motor cycle and he parked his motor cycle at Burujanaroppa Gate and went to have a tea alone by leaving the motor cycle key in motor cycle and unknown person and he himself has allowed to stolen his motor cycle.  It is clearly shows that his negligence motor cycle was stolen and also on verifying the Xerox copy of the DL produced  by the OP.  It shows that the complainant has no valid DL as on the date of theft of the vehicle i.e., on 29/05/2013.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  In view of the above said reasons, we answer the Point No.1 held as negative.       

 

 27.  Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein, we pass the following.

 

ORDER

        It is ordered that the complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of C.P Act 1986 is hereby dismissed.  Parties to bear their own costs.

 

        Accordingly, complaint is dismissed. 

 

 

        (This order is made with the consent Member after the correction of the draft on 16/06/2015 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures.)         

 

 

MEMBER                                                 MEMBER

 

ANNEXURES:

 

Complainant by filing  affidavit evidence taken as PW-1.

Witness examined on behalf of complainant:

                                                -Nil-

On behalf of OP Divisional Manager by filing  affidavit evidence taken as DW-1.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

-Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Certified true copy of the FIR issued by Aimangala Police, Hiriyur,
02	Ex-A-2:-	True copy of the complaint dated 05.06.2013 given by the complainant to the Aimangala Police.
03	Ex-A-3:-	Repudiation letter dated 27/12/2013 issued by the OP to the complainant
04	Ex-A-4:-	True copy of the policy

 

Documents marked on behalf of Opponent:

 

01

Ex-B-1:-

Certified true copy of the policy

 

 

MEMBER                                         MEMBER

 

Rhr***