Between:

R.Mahendra Reddy,

S/o Mysoora Reddy,

C/o Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy,

Near Shanthinikethan School Road,

# 77/118-3, Bhagyanagar,

Kallur Estate, Kurnool – 518 003.                   …Complainant

                                                    -Vs-      

   1. The Branch Manager,

        Reliance General Insurance Company,

        Shop No.13, MRB Trade Centre,

        Bangarupet,

        Kurnool – 518 004,

   2.  The Authorized Signatory,

        Reliance General Insurance Company,

        H.No.4-1-327 to 337, 4^th Floor,

        Sagar Plaza, Abids Road,

        Hyderabad – 500 001.                                                   ...Opposite ParTies

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate for complainant and opposite part No.1 called absent and Sri.P.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

                                       ORDER

(As per Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, Male Member President (FAC)) 

C.C. No.53/2012

1.     The complainant filed this case under section 11 and 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking a direction on opposite parties for the payment of:-

(a)          Assured amount of Rs.50,400/- with interest  24% per annum from the date of theft;

(b)          Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardship;

(c)           Cost of the complaint;

2.    Briefly the complainant’s case is that as an employee of Vodafone Company he has to tour all over the State.  His Bajaj Pulsar Motor Cycle Purchased in the year, 2011 bearing No.KA03 HG 1202 was insured with opposite party No.1 under Reliance Two Wheeler Vehicle Certificate cum Package Policy bearing No.1808702312000530 covering the risk for the period from 30-03-2011 to 29-03-2012.  On Company work while he was in Hanmakonda on 24-01-2012 went to SBI opposite Ashok complex at 11.30 A.M. parking his vehicle near the complex.  After half an hour he came back from the bank and found his motor cycle missing.  He searched for the vehicle whole day but could not trace it.  Next day i.e., on 25-01-2012 he lodged a complaint at Hanmakonda Police Station which was registered in F.I.R. No.31/2012 dated 25-01-2012.  The police asked him to come to the Police Station for every 10 days and enquire about his vehicle.  Three days after his two visits to P.S. complainant was called to identify his motor cycle among some of the seized vehicles. Like wise the complainant moved round the P.S. for 2 to 3 times. But his vehicle was not recovered.     Finally on 27-02-2012 on the advise of police, the complainant informed in writing about the theft of his motor cycle to opposite party.  But the claim of the complainant was rejected on the ground of delayed intimation.  The complainant felt that it is unreasonable to repudiate his claim though there is valid reason for his delayed intimation.   Hence this case is filed before this Forum claiming appropriate reliefs.

3.     In reply to the notice of this Forum opposite party No.2 filed written version denying his liability to the complainant’s claim.  Opposite party No.1 called absent.  Opposite party No.2 in his written version averred that he is unable to admit that the complainant is owner of Motor Cycle bearing No.KA03 HG 1202, its insurance policy for IDV of Rs.50,400/-, theft of vehicle on 24-01-2012 at S.B.I., Hanmakonda, Registering the Case in F.I.R. No.31/2012 dated 25-01-2012 and the visits of complainant to Police Station to identify his vehicle among seized  vehicles.  For all the above incidents opposite party sought documentary evidence.  Opposite party submitted that theft of motor cycle occurred on 24-01-2012 but he received information on 27-02-2012 i.e., after lapse of 33 days. As per terms and conditions of Private Car Policy.

Condition No.1: Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental or loss or damage and 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 injury in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy.  In case of theft or other criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the policy and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender.

        Condition No.2: No admission offer promise payment or indemnity shall be made  or given by or on behalf of the insured without the written consent of the company which shall be entitled if it so desires to take over and conduct in the name of the insured the defence or settlement of any claim or to prosecute in the name of the insured for its own benefit any claim for indemnity or damages or otherwise and shall have full discretion in the conduct of nay proceedings or in the settlement of any claim and the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company may require.

Since the above said conditions were not observed by the complainant the claim is rejected.  The complainant also has to prove that he has taken all reasonable steps to safe guard the vehicle from theft, in the absence of which he is not entitled for any claim.  Opposite party submits that he acted with in the scope of terms and conditions of the policy and there is no deficiency of service on his part. Hence opposite party prayed for the dismissal of case as there are no merits in the complaint with exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/-.

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A5 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 are marked and sworn affidavit of opposite party No.2 is filed.

5.     Both sides filed written arguments and submitted their oral arguments.

6.     Now the points that arise for consideration are:

                     i.        Whether the complainant made out a case against opposite party to prove deficiency?

                    ii.        Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?

                  iii.        To what relief?

7.      POINTS i and ii:- Ex.A1 is the photo copy of the policy.  It discloses that Mr.R.Mahendra Reddy, S/o Mysera Reddy, insured his vehicle bearing No.KA03 HG 1202 with opposite party for IDV (Insured’s Declared Value) Rs.50,400/- for the period from 30-03-2011 to 29-03-2012 under Reliance Two Wheeler Vehicle Certificate cum Package Policy.  Ex.A3 is written complaint of the complainant to Sub Inspector of Policy, Hanmakonda P.S. intimating about the theft of his above said vehicle on 25-02-2012.  Ex.A2 F.I.R. in Crime No.31/2012 dated 25-01-2012 Police Station of Hanmakonda is an evidence that the above said insure vehicle was stolen near S.B.I., Hanmakonda on 24-01-2012.  Ex.A5 is letter dated 27-02-2012 of opposite party seeking clarification from the complainant for delay in intimation of claim to the insurer with reference to the claim registered on 28-01-2012.  Ex.A4 is letter dated 27-02-2012 of complainant/insured to opposite party explaining the reasons for delay in intimation about the theft of vehicle.  Ex.B2 repudiation letter of opposite party dated 27-02-2012 repudiating the complainant’s claim stating that the loss is not payable due to violation of policy terms and conditions as claim intimation was gives with an abnormal delay of 33 days which is against conditions No.1 of the policy.

        Perusal of material papers on record reveals that motor cycle of Mr.R.Mahendra Reddy bearing No.KA03 HG 1202, which was insured with opposite party under two wheeler vehicle package policy for the period from 30-30-2011 to 29-03-2012 was stolen on 24-01-2012 near S.B.I., Ashok complex, Hanmakonda.  A case in F.I.R.No.31/2012 dated 25-01-2012 was registered in Hanmakonda P.S.  Police tried level best to trace the vehicle but could not recover it.  On the date of theft the policy was in force.  In Ex.A5 opposite party admitted that the claim was registered with him on 28-01-2012.  In the same Ex.A5 opposite party stated that the claim was intimated to him with a delay of 33 days for which he sought clarification from the complainant.  The date of Ex.A5 is 27-02-2012.  Opposite party issued another letter on 27-02-2012 Ex.B2 intimating the repudiation of complainant’s claim.  The complainant gave a clarification for delayed intimation on 27-02-2012 to opposite party in Ex.A4.  The act of opposite party sending two letters on the same date 27-02-2012 to the complainant, one seeking clarification for delayed intimation and another intimating repudiation of claim on the ground that policy condition No.1 is violated appears to be haste and unethical.  Opposite party filed a citation for National Commission R.P.No.4762/2012, Surender –Vs– National Insurance Company Limited, where in theft intimation was given after 83 days.  The case was dismissed on the ground of delayed intimation.  The complainant relied on citation IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC).  In this case of National Insurance Company Limited – Vs – Nitin Khandelwal, Supreme Court of India stated that in the case of theft of vehicle, breach of policy condition is not germane, insurer is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when insured has obtained comprehensive policy.  The complainant filed another citation F.A.No.1073/2011 of A.P. State Commission, B.Venkata Swamy – Vs – National Insurance Company Limited along with a Circular Ref:IRDA/HLTH/MISC/CIR/216/09/2011 dated 20-09-2011 issued by IRDA (Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority) Pertaining to delay in claim intimation/ documents.  According to the circular the condition of claim intimation with in specified days should not prevent the settlement of genuine claims particularly when there is delay in intimation due to unavoidable circumstances and insurers are advised to condone delay on merit.  The State Commission decided the case in favour of insured though there is a delayed intimation of more than four months.  In the instant case as per Ex.A5 the claim was registered with opposite party on 28-01-2012 with four days of delay.  In Ex.A1 it is clearly mentioned that insured can intimate insurer within seven days from the date of loss.  Hence an inference can be drawn from Ex.A4 and Ex.A1 that there is no delayed intimation by the complainant about theft of his motor cycle.

        In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and exhibits that were filed by the complainant, this Forum holds that rejection of complainant’s claim by opposite party is unethical and unjust.  Hence deficiency on the part of opposite parties is proved entitling the complainant to receive compensation as claimed for.

8.      Point No.iii:- The complainant claimed Rs.50,400/- as cost of the vehicle.  But in Ex.A2, Ex.A3 he declared the value of vehicle as Rs.45,000/.  Hence compensation of Rs.45,000/- for vehicle loss is allowed.  For causing mental agony by opposite parties for not settling the claim at his level Rs.3,000/- is granted. 

9.     In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.45,000/- as compensation for vehicle loss and Rs.3,000/- for causing mental agony.  9% per annum interest is allowed on the awarded amount from the date of repudiation i.e., 27-02-2012.  Cost of case is Rs.500/-. Time for compliance is one month from the date of this order. 

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 6^th day of June, 2013.

Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-    

LADY MEMBER                                                                PRESIDENT (FAC)              

      APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                    Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nill            For the opposite parties : Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1                Photo copy of Policy issued by opposite party.

Ex.A2                Photo copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.31/2012,

dated 25-01-2012 issued by Warangal Urban,

Hanamkonda P.S.

Ex.A3                Photo copy of complainant to P.S. by complainant

dated 25-01-2012.

Ex.A4        Photo copy of Letter giving reasons for delay intimation dated 27-02-2012.

Ex.A5        Photo copy of Letter seeks clarification for delay from complaint by opposite party dated 27-02-2012.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-

Ex.B1                Photo copy of Policy Terms and conditions issued for

                the vehicle bearing No.KA03 HG 1202.

Ex.B2                Photo copy of Repudiation Letter dated 27-02-2012.

Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-    

LADY MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT (FAC)    

    // Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties  :

Copy was made ready on             :

Copy was dispatched on               :