Complaint filed on: 09-02-2017 Disposed on: 04-10-2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM
OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101
CC.No.14/2017
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF OCTOBER 2017
PRESENT
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT
SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER
Complainant: -
Divakar.B.R,
S/o. Ranganathappa,
Aged 28 years,
No.47, Bhupasandra post,
Sira Taluk, Tumakuru district
(By Advocate Sri.Mohamed Ahmed)
V/s
Opposite party:-
The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd
Kastury Mansion, MG Road,
Behind Krishna Theater,
Tumakuru
(By advocate Sri.T.K.Surendra Singh)
ORDER
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OP, Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct the OP to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000=00 along with 18% interest and also damages of Rs.5,000=00, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.
The complainant is the RC owner of TATA INDICA CAR vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-06D-1031. The complainant had insured the said vehicle and obtained the Insurance policy from the OP vide policy bearing No.253310/31/13/0150074320 and the same was valid from 3-1-2014 to 2-1-2015 and the policy is carrying package policy. The complainant had paid the premium amount of Rs.24,993=00, that will covered all risk.
The complainant further submitted that, the complainant had parked the said vehicle besides Anusuyamma building, 4th cross near Govt. School, Prasanth nagar, T.Dasarahalli, Bengaluru on 14-2-2014 and early morning at about 5.30 a.m. the complainant noticed that, the car was stolen by some unknown person. Hence, the complainant had lodged the complaint on 18-02-2014 before the Peenya Police Station and the said police have registered a case in Cr.No.110/2014, after 8 days, the complainant had informed the insurer i.e. OP.
The complainant further submitted that, the OP had repudiated the claim of the complainant on 25-11-2016 on the ground that, the complainant had lodged the complaint to the police after lapse of 4 days and 8 days delay in making information to insurer. The complainant further submitted that, the complainant had informed the theft of the vehicle to the police immediately after incident and the police have directed to the complainant to search the vehicle and not recorded the FIR, if not found, the complainant had lodged the complaint after lapse of 4 days. Further the complainant informed the theft of the vehicle to the OP Insurance Company, the Manager orally told the complainant to bring FIR and other relevant documents. Hence, the complainant applied for duplicate copies and filed the application with Xerox copies of documents before the OP only after 8 days, both the reasons for delay is bonafide. But the OP has not settled the claim of the complainant and the OP called to furnish another set of documents and on 21-9-2016 the complainant furnished all the documents. But till today, the OP has not settled the claim of the complainant. Hence the present complaint is filed.
3. In response to the forum notice, the OP has appeared through his counsel and filed objection contending interalia as under:
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. The OP submitted that, the complainant intimated the theft of the vehicle to the insurance company office on 22-2-2014, the vehicle theft on the date of 14-2-2014 i.e. after delay of 4 days. Further, the complainant has intimated the theft of the vehicle to the jurisdictional police and lodged the complaint after delay of 4 days. As per the terms and conditions, the intimation giving immediately to the insurance company office. But here in this case, the owner of the vehicle not intimated the theft of the vehicle immediately and violated and terms and conditions of the policy. Further, even inspite of repeated reminder documents and key of the vehicle submitted only on 19-2-2016 after 2 years 7 months delay. Hence, the OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The policy issued and risk covered is subjected to the terms and condition of the policy. All other allegations made in the complaint are all denied as false. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint, in the interest of justice and equity.
4. In the course of enquiry in to the complaint, the complainant and the OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced documents which were marked as Ex-C1 to C16. We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the documents and then posted the cases for order.
5. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged by the complainant?
2. What Order?
6. Our findings on the above points are;
Point no.1: In the negative
Point no.2: As per the final order below.
REASONS
7. On perusal of the pleadings of the complaint and objections of the OP, it is an undisputed fact that, the complainant is the RC owner of the TATA Indica Car vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-06D-1031 and the said vehicle was insured with the OP insurance company vide policy No.253310/31/13/0150074320 and the same was valid from 3-1-2014 to 2-1-2015. It is also admitted fact that, on 14-2-2014 the complainant was parked the vehicle besides Anusuyamma building, 4th cross near Govt. School, Prasanth nagar, T.Dasarahalli, Bengaluru and early morning, at about 5.30 a.m. the said vehicle was stolen by unknown person. The complainant was lodged the complaint before the Peenya police station, Bengaluru on 18-2-2014 and registered the case in Cr.No.110/2014 and after 8 days delay of incident, the complainant has informed the OP.
8. The main contention of the complainant is that, the complainant had informed the theft of the vehicle immediately to the jurisdictional police, thereafter the police have directed the complainant to search the vehicle, if not found, then the complainant lodged the complaint before the jurisdictional police after lapse of 4 days and 8 days delay in making information to the OP. The OP has not settled the claim of the complainant, but all efforts of the complainant went in vein, hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
9. Per-contra, the OP submitted that, the complainant intimated the theft of the vehicle to the OP office on 22-2-2014 and the vehicle theft on the date of 14-2-2014. Hence there was a delay of 4 days in intimating the theft of the vehicle to the jurisdictional police and lodged the complaint after lapse of 4 days of incident and also there was a delay of 8 days to intimate the theft of the vehicle to the OP office. As per the terms and conditions, the intimations shall be given immediately to the OP office, but the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Even inspite of repeated reminders, the complainant has submitted the documents and key of the vehicle on 12-2-2016 i.e. after lapse of 2 years and 7 months. Hence, the OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
10. On perusal of the documents produced by the complainant i.e. Ex-C1/repudiation letter dated 25-11-2016, wherein it is seen that, “the claim is repudiated on the ground of delay in 4 days in intimating the claim to police station and 8 days in intimating the claim to the insurer. As per the policy condition, “Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damages/theft in the event of any claim …”. In view of the above condition, the claim is rejected”. It is mandatory on the part of the complainant to give notice to the insurance company immediately.
11. We quoted some citations, in the case between Shri Kuldeep Singh V/s IFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd reported in 2013 NCJ 104 (NC), wherein it has held that,
“Theft of vehicle –Insurance claim –Rejected – Validity – held –Delay in reporting the theft of vehicle is to be crucial in the matter of violation of terms and conditions of policy based on which claim of complainant was not suited – Found no irregularity”.
In the case between Surender V/s National Insurance Company Limited reported in 2013 NCJ 155 (NC) wherein it has held that,
“Theft of vehicle-Claim for insurance – rejected –validity –held – as per terms and conditions of insurance policy it was obligatory on part of complainant to intimate about theft of vehicle to the insurance company immediately- since complainant intimated the insurance company after 83 days tantamount violation of terms and policy –rejection of complaint is just and proper”.
In the case between Ramesh Chandra S/o. Shri Munshi Ram V/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd, reported in 2014 NCJ 151 (NC), wherein it has held that,
“Motor vehicles-claim for theft –allowed by Dist. Forum but rejected by State Commission- Legality – Held – By falling promptly to inform the theft of truck to police as well as insurance company, the petitioner has failed to take proper care to protect the interest of insurance company, as such insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim-Found no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment”.
12. In the present case, the complainant’s vehicle was stolen on 14-2-2014 and the complainant had complained the theft to the police on 18-2-2014 and intimated the theft to the OP on 22-2-2014 i.e. after lapse of 8 days. The same was not disputed by the complainant. The complainant has not placed any documents to prove that, the complainant has intimated the theft of the vehicle immediately to the OP/insurance company as well of jurisdictional police and thereby the complainant has clearly violated the policy terms and conditions. Hence, in view of the above discussion and in view of the judgments referred above, it is clear that, the complainant has violated the policy terms and conditions and thereby the repudiation of the claim by the OP is in accordance with law and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. Accordingly, we answer this point in a negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. No costs.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this, the 4th day of October 2017)
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
