Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/572/2014

Pravati P Araganji. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

A.R.Angadi.

07 Apr 2017

ORDER

IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.

 

Dated this 7^th day of April 2017

Complaint No. 572/2014

 

Present:              1)      Shri.B.V.Gudli,                       President  

2)      Smt. Sunita,                           Member

-***-

Complainant/s:          Smt.Parvati W/o.Prakash Araganji,

Age:50 years, Occ: Private Employee,

R/o.Shivaji Nagar, Belagavi.

 

(By Sri.A.R.Angadi, Advocate)

 

V/s.

                                                                     

Opponent/s:      1.      The Branch Manager,

Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Madiwale Complex,

Club Road, Belagavi.

 

2.      Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd.,

GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada,

Pund, Maharashtra 411006.

 

 

(By Sri.V.I.Mahantshettar, Advocate)

 

 (Order dictated by Sri.B.V.Gudli, President)

 

 

 

ORDER

          U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service in not paying the vehicle insurance policy amount by the OPs.

          2) The O.P.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel & filed their written version, written argument, affidavit and produced some documents.

           3) In support of the claim of the complaint, the complainant has filed her affidavit and produced some documents.

4) We have also heard on both sides and perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps & entitled to the reliefs sought?

          6) Our finding on the point is in negative, for the following reasons.

:: R E A S O N S ::

            7)       On perusal of allegations of the complaint and affidavit of complainant, the complainant purchased Maruti Suzuki in September 2012 and its color is pearl blue for Rs.2,40,691/- bearing Chassis No.MA 3E VB II SO. 1363470, Engine No.F8 BIN 4486362. The vehicle was temporarily registered bearing No.KA 22 TE 4667 with RTO Belagavi. The said vehicle was insured with OPs at Belagavi Branch on 27.09.2012 bearing policy no.09-13-1713-1801-0000410 which is valid upto 26.09.2013. The complainant usually used to park every day her Maruti Suzuki car in front of ‘Sai Mess’ Shivaji Nagar. On 27.03.2013 the complainant’s husband committed suicide & was admitted in Civil Hospital Belagavi & he died on 18.03.2013. As the complainant was under mental pressure, she could not notice the presence of her car parked in the usual place. After one week of death of her husband the relatives of complainant informed her that she is a defaulter in payment of instalments of Mahindra Finance and the vehicle may be seized by them. Hence the complainant approached Mahindra Finance, but they intimated that they have not seized the complainant’s vehicle. Hence complainant filed a complaint on 30.03.2013 at Market Police Station Belagavi bearing PS No.126/2013 u/s.279 of IPC & on the same day panchanama was also done. The complainant intimated the OP.1 regarding theft of the vehicle and also furnished necessary documents. The OP.1 repudiated claim of the complainant four times viz., on 14.08.2013, 22.08.2013, 20.09.2013 & 13.02.2013. Hence the complainant got issued legal notice dt.17.06.2013 to OPs through her counsel but, OP.1 has not replied to the legal notice. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against OPs. 

8)      On perusal of contents of objections filed by OPs, the OPs admit that they had issued policy towards Maruti Suzuki vehicle bearing Chassis No.MA 3E VB II SO. 1363470, Engine No.F8 DIN 4486362 bearing policy no.OG-13-1713-1801-0000410. Further the OPs intimated the insured under their letter dt.14.08.2013, 22.08.2013, 20.09.2013 & 13.02.2013 & OPs contended that the complainant has made inordinate delay informing about the theft of the car. OPs states that for the first time the complainant reported claim on 22.06.2013 & further taken contention that the vehicle was not registered and complainant has violated MV Act 1988 & there is a delay in intimating to the police and also 3 months 5 days delay in intimating the company. Hence OPs intimated the complainant by letter dt.13.02.2014 stating that “Hence your claim stands closed”. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.

9)      On perusal of contention of the OPs, first of all the vehicle was not registered at the time of theft. Hence the insured is not entitled to the theft claim because the vehicle is not registered. The advocate for OPs argued that, there is a delay in filing the complaint and there is an inordinate delay in informing the OPs regarding theft of the vehicle. The advocate for OPs relied on the following decisions :

1. FA 141/09 NC
2.  FA 426/04 NC
3. FA 321/05 NC
4. Revision Petition 2534/2012 NC
5. Revision Petition 2982/2012 NC
6. Revision Petition 4762/2012 NC
7. Revision Petition 3049/2014 NC
8. Revision Petition 3719/2011 NC
9. Revision Petition 1670/2014 NC &
10. Revision Petition 4235/2012 NC

As per the above decisions “Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as company shall require.

10)    On perusal of contents of complainant and evidence affidavit of the complainant she has not mentioned when the vehicle was theft. On perusal of contents of FIR, date of theft was 17.03.2013 to 19.03.2013. However complaint was given on 30.03.2013 i.e. after 13 days of theft, hence there is delay in filing the complaint. It is against to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and it requires insured to give immediate intimation about the theft. The FIR being lodged and claim intimation sent to OPs, highly belatedly. The conduct of the complainant in having awaited about 13 days for lodging complaint with police is unnatural and there is suspicion in regard to the manner in which insured vehicle was lost. The complaint shall be given in writing to the company about the occurrence of loss or damage or in the event of any claim and thereafter insured shall give such all information & assistance as the company shall require. It is incumbent upon the complainant to inform the police about the theft immediately, say within 24 hours. In this case the complainant informed the police regarding theft of the vehicle after 13 days.  Further the contention of the OPs is that the vehicle was not registered at the time of theft, hence the insured is not entitled for theft claim. When the vehicle is not registered, it is the duty of the insured to register the vehicle with the concerned RTO according to Sec.39 of MV Act 1988. The complainant has contravened the provisions of Sec.39 of MV Act 1988. There is inordinate delay in filing the complaint as well as informing the insurance company. The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of policy on account of delayed intimation, hence the complainant is deprived of her legitimate right of getting enquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make the endeavor to recover the same. The complainant is not entitled to insurance claim against OPs. The decisions relied on by the advocate are applicable to the OPs.

          11) Taking into consideration of the facts, evidence on record and the discussion made here before the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. 

12)    Accordingly the following

ORDER

          The complaint filed by the complainants is dismissed. No order as to costs.

 (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 7^th day of April 2017)

 

 

 

MSR