DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 15th day of March 2014
Present: Smt.Seena.H. President
Smt.Shiny.P.R. Member
Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing : 24/08/2013
CC No.140/2013
Rajesh
S/o.Unnikrishnan,represented by
U.Salini
W/o.Rajesh
(Power of Attorney holder)
Karinjali Veedu,
Erimayur Post,
Alathur – 678 546, Palakkad.
(By Adv.M.Raveendran) - Complainant
Vs
Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Surya Complex,
Mission School Junction,
T.B.Road, Palakkad - 14 - Opposite party
(By Adv.K.Lakshminarayanan)
O R D E R
Order by Smt.SEENA.H, PRESIDENT
The complainant is the Power of Attorney holder and wife of the original complainant. On 08/04/2013 the motor cycle of the original complainant bearing number KL-49-C 6533 which was parked in the porch of the complainant, caught fire and got destroyed. The complainant had insured the said vehicle with the opposite party. The vehicle was having insurance from 5-3-2013 to 4-3-2014. A claim was lodged before the opposite party for the loss sustained. At the time of the incident the owner of the vehicle, namely the husband of the complainant was at his residence. He had complained about the incident to the Alathur Police and Fire Force. They had issued necessary documents also which was produced before the insurance company. But as the opposite party insisted for F.I.R. the complainant again contacted the police and they stated that no F.I.R. will be registered and only a certificate of which will be issued by the Police authorities. Since the opposite party did not settle the claim the complainant is forced to file this complaint.
The contention of the complainant that the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-49-C-6533 was damaged due to fire on 8/4/13 night (early hours of 9/4/13) is admitted. But the complainant has not raised any complaint with the police in respect of the loss caused to the vehicle due to fire. The accident as per fire report is that some mischief has put on fire on the vehicle. The police has entered only a general diary entry noting down that the vehicle damaged due to fire. But as per the fire report it is seen that somebody has put fire on the vehicle. In the above circumstances the company (insurer) has a legitimate doubt that why the complainant has not filed any police complaint. So the applicant’s claim was kept pending. He was asked to register a police complaint. Since this is a case of total loss the company has got a right over the property in case of payment. According to opposite party, the contention of the applicant that the police will not give first information report in these types of cases is not correct. The complainant has purposefully avoided making a complaint to the police. So the police has noted only the fact and has made only a GD entry. Since the complainant has not made any complaint regarding this mischief they have not taken any action. The conduct of the complainant was not as of a prudent ordinary man. Even after loss of a thing worth more than Rs.30,000/- he has not taken any action against the law breakers, but is trying to get insurance amount. The claim intimation was received on 11/4/2013. On getting the investigation report the complainant was asked to file an F.I.R. But he refused to do so. The claim form was submitted only on 13/5/2013. There is no delay or latches on the part of the company in settling the claim. But due to the non co-operation of the complainant the claim was not able to settle. According to opposite party complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Complainant and opposite party filed chief affidavit. Ext.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of complainant and Ext.B1 to B4 marked on the side of opposite party.
Issues for consideration.
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?
2.If so, what is the relief and cost ?
Issues 1 & 2
Heard both parties and gone through the entire evidence on record. Policy and happening of the incident is seen admitted by the opposite party. Surveyor as per Ext.B2 has assessed loss to the tune of Rs.47,900/-. Opposite party has argued that the claim of the complainant so far has not been repudiated, but kept open for production of F.I.R. The stand of the opposite party is that they are always ready to disburse the claim provided copy of the F.I.R. is submitted. Complainant has produced certificate issued by the Alathur Police in respect of the incident intimated by the complainant and recorded in their General Diary.
The question to be decided is whether the act of opposite party compelling the complainant to produce the F.I.R. is justifiable and whether such a document is a must in this particular case for processing the claim.
This is the case wherein the complainant has duly intimated the incident to the police, but F.I.R. was not registered. Instead a certificate was issued showing the GD entry only. Complainant was also under the belief that the said document will serve the purpose. Complainant has produced all the documents including the certificate issued by the Alathur Police to opposite party for processing the claim, but the opposite party was compelling the complainant to produce the F.I.R. We are of the view that opposite party have taken a general stand that in every such cases, F.I.R. is a must. Opposite party ought to have a liberal stand in this particular case to except the complainant from producing the F.I.R. considering the fact that the insured vehicle was only 1 year old and no prudent man will destroy the same for the purpose of claiming insurance. Another relevant point to be noted here is that only the insurance company has suspicion regarding the incident, but the investigator appointed has no such suspicion. The relevant portion of the survey report marked as Ext.B2 is noted below:
Cause and nature of accident:- The undersigned has inspected the vehicle at the insured’s residence. The insured and the family members were present. On discussing with them, it was told that the insured has parked the vehicle at the side of his house. At about 1.00 AM on 8/4/2013, on seeing the flame, they pushed the vehicle down and tried to extinguish the fire. By that time, the vehicle has burned completely. The fire could have started due to electrical short circuiting. On considering the nature and extent of damages sustained by the insured vehicle the reason given is acceptable.
The investigator has clearly opined that the fire could have started due to electrical short circuiting. Even then opposite party failed to honour the genuine claim of the complainant which is clearly 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.
In the result complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay complainant an amount of Rs.47,900/- (Rupees Forty seven thousand nine hundred only) being the claim amount alongwith Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceeding. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of March 2014.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
Member
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Power of Attorney
Ext.A2 – Photocopy of Registration Certificate of vehicle No.KL-49-C-6533
Ext.A3 – Photocopy of Insurance Policy
Ext.A4 – Certificate issued by SI of Alathur Police Station dated 20/4/13
Ext.A5 – Report issued by Station Officer, Fire Force department, Alathur
dtd.8/4/13
Ext.A6 – Notice issued by Forum for Consumer Justice to opposite party
13/6/2013
Ext.A7 – Acknowledgment card.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Ext.B1 – Copy of Fire Report
Ext.B2 – Copy of Survey Report
Ext.B3 – True copy of the policy with general conditions
Ext.B4 – Cover returned with copy of the letter.
