District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala
Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2010
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President
Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member
Date of filing: 03/05/2010
CC. No.57/2010
Bindu
W/o.Krishnakumaran
Nedumpallam
Vandithavalam.P.O
Chittur Taluk
Palakkad 678532. - Complainant
(By Adv.Girish.K.Nochulli)
Vs
The Branch Manager
M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.
1st Floor, Mangalam Towers
Opp. Town Bus Stand
T.B.Road, Palakkad - 678001. - Opposite party
(By Adv.Ullas Sudhakaran)
O R D E R
By Smt.SEENA.H, PRESIDENT
Brief case of the complainant:
Complainant’s vehicle which was validly insured with opposite party met with an accident on 30/09/2009. The insured vehicle sustained heavy damage. Immediately after the accident, complainant informed the matter to the opposite party through their agents. As per their advice, vehicle was removed from the site to ‘Shree Lakshmi Devi Workshop’. Surveyor of opposite party company inspected the vehicle and filed report. A sum of Rs.80,000/- had been spent by the complainant for effecting repairs. Complainant claimed the insurance amount, but opposite party repudiated the claim stating that the information of the accident was delayed and the complainant have no insurable interest over the subject matter. The repudiation of the claim without any valid reason amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence the complaint.
Opposite party filed version contending the following:
That at the time of accident complainant was not the owner of the vehicle. The vehicle was sold to Chelladurai, who was the driver at the time of accident. That the fact of accident was not immediately informed to opposite party thereby violating condition No.1 of the policy which states that “notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of the accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim. In this case accident occurred on 30/09/2009 and the same was informed to opposite party only on 25/11/2010. So the opposite party could not conduct immediate inspection of the vehicle. Hence as the claim is repudiated on genuine grounds, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
The evidence led by the complainant consists of the affidavit and Exts.A1 to A5 documents. Opposite party filed affidavit. Exts.B1 and B2 marked.
Now the issues for consideration are;
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2. If so, what is the reliefs and cost complainant is entitled to?
Issue No.1:
Heard both parties and gone through the entire evidence on record.
The fact of accident and the period of the coverage of the policy is not disputed. The main two contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle as at the time of accident, it was sold to one Chelladurai and that the fact of accident was not informed to the opposite party immediately after the accident thereby depriving opposite party the opportunity to assess loss immediately.
Regarding the 1st contention apart from pleadings there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the contention. Hence the stand of opposite party not acceptable.
It is the case of the opposite party that complainant failed to provide a written intimation to opposite party immediately after the accident. It being a violation of policy condition, opposite party is right in repudiating the claim. Opposite party has placed before us the decision rendered by the Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh and National Commission in support of the their contention. Complainant on the other hand submitted that immediately after the accident, it was intimated to opposite party through their agents.
We have carefully gone through both the decisions. In 923 of 2008, Exquisite Decors Private Limited Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd Hon’ble State Commission on appeal dismissed a complaint which was also dismissed by the District Forum. Hon’ble State Commission dismissed the appeal on the following ground. That the averment of the complainant that immediate telephonic information as to the fact of incident was given to opposite party not proved on the ground that it has not been stated as to who was called and at what number and at what time and what transpired between the two. But in the present case, complainant has specifically stated in the affidavit that it was informed to opposite party through their agents Mr.Ram Kumar and Mr.Sabeer. Opposite party has no case that they are not their agents. Further no steps was taken by opposite party to examine said agents to enquire into truth of the statement. Further opposite party has stated that they received intimation only on 25/11/2009. But no such intimation was produced before the forum. Hence the decision produced is not applicable to the present case.
In the other case produced by opposite party New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Trilochan Jane, First Appeal No.321/2005 rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission, the word ‘immediately’ was thoroughly discussed and it was concluded that the word when used in the contest of the contract is usually construed to mean ‘within a reasonable time having due regard to the nature and circumstances of the case’. Hon’ble National Commission justified the repudiation of the claim when there was a delay in intimating theft to the insurance company as well as to the police. The reasoning was that it deprived the insurance company opportunity to verify whether such theft has actually taken place and also to take immediate steps to trace the vehicle.
So here the question is whether complainant has informed the opposite party ‘within a reasonable time having due regard to the nature and circumstances of the case’. The present case is not one of theft, but accident in which the driver and his relative has succumbed to death. Complainant has stated that driver was the friend of the complainant’s husband. So as a natural human being more concern will be the life of the near ones rather than damage of the vehicle. Even then complainant has stated in the affidavit that it was duly informed to the opposite party’s agents who in turn adviced to entrust the vehicle with Shree Lakshmi Devi Workshop. Opposite party has no case that Mr.Ram Kumar and Mr.Sabeer were not their agents. Moreover the say of the complainant that they received the intimation only on 25/11/2009 is not supported by any evidence. It is true that a written intimation was not given immediately after the accident but repudiation of the whole claim only on that ground is unjustifiable. Surveyor has assessed loss to the tune of Rs.51,500/-. Complainant is entitled for the said amount. The act of opposite party in repudiating the claim amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that complaint be allowed.
Hence complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay complainant an amount of Rs.51,500/- (Rupees Fifty one thousand and five hundred only) along with Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 22nd day of December, 2010
Sd/-
Smt.Seena.H,
President
Sd/- Smt.Preetha.G.Nair,
Member
Appendix
Witnesses examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witnesses examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – FIR
Ext.A2 – Photocopy of certificate cum policy schedule (with objection)
Ext.A3 – Photocopy of letter dtd.9/12/2009 sent by opposite party to complainant
Ext.A4 – Photocopy of letter dtd.21/12/2009 sent by complainant to opposite party
Ext.A5 – Photocopy of letter dtd.28/01/2010 sent by opposite party to complainant
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Ext.B1 – Certificate cum policy schedule
Ext.B2 – Survey report
Cost (allowed)
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost
