Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/47/2015

S.Khader Hussain, S/o.Showkath Ali - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Executive Officer, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

P.Muni Reddy, B.Sekhara Reddy

11 Aug 2016

ORDER

Filing Date: 16.10.2015

Order Date:11.08.2016

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

THURSDAY THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.47/2015

 

 

Between

 

S.Khader Hussain,

S/o. Showkath Ali,

Muslim, aed about 33 years,

D.No.316A, Peddapeerla Chavadi (PP Chavadi),

Tirupati – 517 501,

Chittoor District (AP).                                                                                 … Complainant

 

 

 

And

 

 

1.         The Chief Executive Officer,

            ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited,

            ICICI Lombard House,

            414 Veersavarkar Marg,

            Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple,

            Prabhadevi,

            Mumbai – 400 025.

 

2.         The Manager,

            ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

            6-3-382, Osman Plaza,

            Road No.1, Banjara Hills,

            Hyderabad – 500 034.

 

3.         The Manager,

            ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

            10-14-577, RV Towers, 4^th Floor,

            Tilak Road, Beside Central Park,

            Tirupati – 517 501.

 

4.         The Manager,

            Sri Gopal Automobiles,

            19-3-13(M),  Renigunta Road,

            Tirupati – 517 501.                                                              …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 21.07.16 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.P.Muni Reddy, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.Prem Kumar Karanam, counsel for opposite party No.3, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

 

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section-11 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite parties to pay the market value of the vehicle / sum assured under the scheme Rs.46,700/-, 2) to direct the opposite parties to pay damages for the mental agony in a sum of Rs.15,000/-, and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the legal notice and to pay Rs.4,000/- towards costs of the litigation.

            2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:- that on 30.09.2014 at about        6 p.m., the complainant parked his Passion Pro Drum Self Spoke Hero Honda two wheeler bearing No.AP-03-AP-0255 in front of Rush hospital, Reddy & Reddy Colony, Tirupati, and he attended the maintenance work of air conditioners of the said hospital. On completion of work, he returned at about 8 p.m. and found that his vehicle was missing. He searched for his vehicle in the surroundings for about half an hour. Thereafter, immediately he went to Central Crime Station, Tirupati, and orally reported the matter to Station House Officer at about 8.30 p.m. on the same day. The police asked the complainant to search for the vehicle and they will also search to trace-out the vehicle. The complainant went to police station for about 10 days daily.    

            3.  The complainant had informed the vendor of the vehicle Sri Gopal Automobiles, Tirupati (O.P.No.4), and on their instructions, he approached the local branch officials of the opposite party at Tilak Road, Tirupati, and orally informed them about the loss of his vehicle. The complainant further stated that the local staff advised him to inform the concerned on the Toll Free Number given by them saying that the information must be furnished only on obtaining FIR.

            4.  That the police registered FIR at 13 hours on 13.10.2014 and its copy was also furnished to him on the same day (13.10.2014). There-upon, complainant preferred the insurance claim against the loss on 24.11.2014 in accordance with the procedure advised by local office in Tilak Road, Tirupati. The opposite parties returned his claim papers by their letter dt:11.05.2015 stating that there is delay in reporting the matter and the claim stands as “no claim”. Complainant got issued legal notice to opposite parties, but the opposite parties neither gave reply nor settled the claim. Hence the complaint.

            5.  Opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 remained exparte.

            6.  3^rd opposite party alone is the contesting party. In its written version parawise allegations in the complaint were denied and further contended that the  complainant had insured his vehicle i.e. two wheeler under policy No.214600/31/AP/10191/2011/552641, Certificate No.3005/24170373/10171/000 and the same was valid from 30.08.2014 to 29.08.2015. While availing the said policy, complainant declared his vehicle value as Rs.22,849/-. That the complainant went to the office of opposite party No.3 on 14.10.2014 and intimated that his motorcycle bearing No.AP-03-AP-0255 was stolen on 30.09.2014, while he parked the same in front of Rush hospital, Reddy & Reddy Colony, Tirupati. He also submitted the copies of R.C., Insurance Copy and copy of FIR. As per FIR the alleged theft was occurred on 30.09.2014 and complaint is lodged on 13.10.2014 (after lapse of 13 days of alleged theft), he intimated the alleged theft to the insurance company on 14.10.2014 after lapse of 14 days after loss of the vehicle.

            7.  Immediately, after intimation and after processing the papers submitted by complainant, as per procedure, surveyor is instructed to investigate the matter. Surveyor has submitted his report confirming the theft of the vehicle. After thorough investigation and on scrutinizing the claim papers, opposite parties found that there is delay of 13 days in lodging complaint with police and delay of 14 days is there in intimating the insurance company about the theft of the vehicle. As such the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, on this ground, the claim was repudiated and intimated to the complainant vide letter dt:11.05.2015. No final report is filed by police stating that the vehicle is undetectable. Since the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy, his claim is repudiated. Immediately, after receipt of claim papers, they were processed, but due to latches on the part of the complainant, his claim was repudiated. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. There is no cause of action for filing this case and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            8.  Complainant filed his evidence affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. One Sri. Vasudeva Reddy, working as Manager in opposite parties, filed his evidence affidavit as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B6. Both parties have filed their respective written arguments.

            9.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether the repudiation order dt:11.05.2015 of opposite party is unjust?

            (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

            (iii)  To what relief?

            10.  Point No.(i):- before answering this point it is pertinent to note that this complaint is filed under Section-11 of C.P.Act, which is unsustainable because Section-11 deals with jurisdiction aspect only. The relief portion in the complaint also appears to be a little bit vague, as Point.6 of the complaint runs as follows – the complainant herein therefore prefers the following claims against the opposite parties as detailed hereunder, 1) the market value of the vehicle / sum assured under the scheme Rs.46,700/-, 2) damages for the mental agony caused Rs.15,000/-, 3) cost of legal notice Rs.1,000/-, 4) cost of litigation in the Forum Rs.4,000/-, and total Rs.66,700/-. They did not seek for any direction to the opposite party to pay the above said amount to the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant did not mention as to how the complaint is maintainable under Section-11 of the C.P.Act. Coming to the next point, the important points to be noted are:- theft of the vehicle is in between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. on 30.09.2014. According to the complainant he went to the Central Crime Station at about 8.30 p.m. on the same day, for which no evidence is available. His vehicle was insured with opposite party No.3 at Tirupati, under policy No.214600/31/AP/10191/2011/552641, policy is for the period from 30.08.2014 to 29.08.2015, policy is in force as on the date of theft. The complainant went to police station for about 10 days from the date of theft. It itself clearly shows that the complainant did not intimate the opposite parties about the theft of the vehicle for about 10 days, after the alleged theft of his vehicle. The complainant stated that he informed opposite party No.4, Sri.Gopal Automobiles, from whom he purchased the vehicle, but he did not mention the reason as to why he informed opposite party No.4 about the theft of his vehicle instead of intimating the same to opposite parties 1 to 3 or either of them.

            11.  The complainant further stated that on the instructions of opposite party No.4, he approached local branch officials of opposite party i.e. opposite party No.3 at Tilak Road, Tirupati, and orally informed them about the theft of vehicle. Here also the complainant failed to mention specifically to whom he intimated about the theft orally and when he met the local branch officials of opposite party No.3 and who are those officials to whom he informed about the theft of his vehicle etc. details and for this purpose also there is no iota of evidence. According to the complainant every effort, he made only orally, for which there may not be any evidence. Further, the complainant stated that on the advise of so called local officials, the complainant informed the concerned through toll free number given by them (local officials), but for the reasons best known, the complainant did not mention after the alleged advise from so called officials, whom he has informed about the theft of his vehicle and what is the alleged toll free number through which the complainant informed about the theft of vehicle. So, all these aspects are appears to be created to substantiate the complainant’s version.  

            12.  Police registered the FIR on 13.10.2014 at 13 hours and its copy also given to the complainant on the same day. The complainant made his insurance claim along with copies of R.C., insurance policy and FIR only on 24.11.2014, i.e. to say he has intimated about the theft of his vehicle only through his claim application after 54 days of theft of his vehicle. It clearly shows that the complainant did not inform the insurance company about the theft of his two wheeler till 24.11.2014 along with his insurance claim. When the theft took place on 30.09.2014, complainant did not choose to inform the insurance company about the theft of his vehicle till 14.10.2014 i.e. about 14 days delay is there in intimating the insurance company about the theft  In this regard, we have to say that delay of 14 days in giving intimation to insurance company about the theft of his vehicle is fatal.

13.  In this regard, the learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 relied on a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.2479/2015 in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Jai Prakash, in which the Hon’ble National Commission passed orders on 11.01.2016. The brief facts of the case are that the truck dumper bearing No.RJ 23 GA 4786 got insured with petitioner for the period from 10.10.2010 to 09.10.2011. During the said period his truck was stolen between 06.06.2011 and 07.06.2011, a report with concerned police was lodged on 07.06.2011 itself. The intimation to the insurance company was given only on 07.09.2011. The claim lodged by complainant was rejected by the insurance company on account of delayed intimation of the theft to insurance company. Aggrieved by the said order of the insurance company, the complainant filed a case before the District Forum, petitioner / opposite party resisted the complaint on the same ground on which the claim has been rejected. The District Forum while its order dt:29.10.2014 allowed the complaint and directed payment of Rs.9,50,000/- to the complainant along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint. The insurance company filed appeal before the State Commission, which dismiss the appeal on 02.06.2015. Hence the revision petition. Their Lordships of National Commission held that we have no hesitation in holding that “insured was under a contractual obligation to intimate the theft of the vehicle to the insurer immediately after the said theft came to his knowledge and mere intimating the police or lodging FIR does not amount to sufficient compliance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Since admittedly there was substantial delay in intimating the theft of the vehicle to the insurance company, the insurer was entitled to repudiate the claim on account of aforesaid default on the part of the insured. Consequently, the revision petition No.2479/2015 filed by Reliance General Insurance Company is allowed and the complaint filed by the respondent / complainant Jai Prakash is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

14.  The learned counsel for the opposite party No.3, also relied on another decision of Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition No.4749/2013 in Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Jaipur, Rajasthan Vs. L.Mahender Jat. The facts of the decision are as per respondent / complainant, his vehicle No.RJ 01 SJ 9942, was stolen on the night of 17.12.2010 from the rented house of the respondent by some unknown persons, for which an FIR No.442/2010 had been lodged in police station Kekri. The police submitted final untraced report of the property. The respondent intimated the company regarding the theft of the above said vehicle on toll free number 1800 180 7474 and intimated to the agent on 18.12.2010, whereby the respondent was informed to give written information to the Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Ajmer, along with copy of FIR and other documents. The respondent sent the copy of FIR to the Branch Manager at Ajmer, after receiving the same from police station, after completion of all formalities, the petitioner insurance company vide its letter dt:02.02.2011 repudiated the claim of the respondent stating that the vehicle was stolen on 17.12.2010 and intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle was given to the company only 07.01.2011 for the first time which amounts to violation of policy terms and conditions. Aggrieved by the said repudiation orders, the complainant approached the District Forum, Ajmer (Rajasthan). The District Forum vide their order dt:17.02.2012 has dismissed the complaint holding that “the National Commission in its order dated 01.09.2011 in Revision Petition no.1362/2011 Rang Lal (Deceased) through Legal Representatives Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and Ors. Settled the legal position that immediately after the incident of vehicle theft the insurance company should be intimated and First Information Report should be registered, but the complainant violated the policy conditions by not doing so, therefore, he is not entitled to claim any compensation. The National Commission in its order dated 09.12.2009 in New India Assurance Company Vs. Trilochan Jane, Appeal No.321 of 2005 held that not giving intimation to insurance company for         9 days after theft is fatal, in this time period the vehicle may be taken to far distance means it may be sold out to scrap dealer and such delay is fatal for investigation. The counsel for the complainant failed to explain how the above authority is not applicable to the present case”. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondent / complainant filed appeal before State Commission. The State Commission while accepting the appeal has observed that “in our opinion the toll free number belongs to opposite party and opposite party has records of it. Therefore, the burden was on the opposite party to prove that no such intimation was received on toll free number. Complainant filed affidavit in support of giving intimation on toll free number. Therefore, intentional delay in claim intimation is not proved. The claim of the complainant is repudiated on false grounds. Therefore, in the above facts, circumstances and consideration the appeal of the appellant / complainant is accepted and order dated 17.02.2012 passed by District Forum, Alwar, is set aside and opposite party insurance company is directed to pay the complainant claimed amount of Rs.30,000/- and pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses within 30 days. If the order is not complied within 30 days, the interest at the rate of 9% will be payable on the above amount. Consequently the appeal is disposed of”. Dissatisfied with the order of the State Commission, the insurance company filed this present revision petition. Their Lordships of National Commission upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the revision petition setting aside the orders passed by the State Commission and confirmed the orders of the District Forum and complaint is dismissed.

15.  In another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in JT 2004 (8) SC 8 – United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Harchand Rai, their Lordships observed that delay in intimation to insurance company in theft case is fatal. In another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6739 of 2010 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha, their Lordships observed that respondent had not informed the appellant about the alleged theft of insured vehicle till he sent letter dt:22.05.1995 to the Branch Manager. In terms of policy issued by the appellant, the respondent was duty bound to inform about the theft of the insured vehicle immediately after the incident. On account of delayed intimation, the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get on inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and made an endeavour to recover the same. Unfortunately, all the Consumer Foras omitted to consider this grave lapse on the part of the respondent / complainant and directed the appellant insurance company to settle his claim on non-standard basis. In our view the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy. As there was inordinate delay of 5 days in lodging FIR with police and about 6 months in intimating to insurer about the theft, repudiation is not improper and it is justified and complaint is dismissed.

16.  In view of the above decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble Supreme Court, we hold that there is inordinate delay of 13 days in lodging FIR and 54 days in intimating the insurance company about the theft of complainant’s insured vehicle until 24.11.2014 on which date the complainant sent his insurance claim application along with the FIR, copy of R.C and insurance policy copy. The complainant did not intimate the insurance company about the theft of his vehicle, so the inordinate delay that occurred in lodging FIR and also not intimating the insurance company about the theft of insured vehicle is fatal. Under those circumstances, we are of the opinion that the repudiation orders passed by the insurance company vide their letter dt:11.05.2015 is not unjust, because of non-intimation to the insurance company about the theft of the insured vehicle immediately after the incident, the insurance company has deprived of its legitimate right to appoint its surveyor to investigate into the matter and trace out the vehicle. Because of such delay, the complainant has given ample opportunity to the culprits to flood away with the looted vehicle. On this ground, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for the insurance claim. Accordingly, this point is answered.

17. Point No.(ii):- in view of our discussion on point No.1 supra, and in view of the inordinate delay and alleged oral complaint before the police, oral intimation to local officials of opposite party and intimation to opposite party officials through so called toll free number (number not mentioned) are remains as vague as it could be, and the complaint under Section-11 of the C.P.Act 1986 is also not proper. All the above facts shows that the complainant failed to discharge his contractual obligation to inform the insurance company immediately about the theft of his vehicle after the incident and in complying with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Since, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, he is not entitled to the insurance claim and other reliefs as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered.

18. Point No.(iii):-  in view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the repudiation order dt:11.05.2015 passed by the insurance company is proper and just, that the complainant is not entitled for any relief including the insurance claim and complaint therefore is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.                                                        

              Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 11^th day of August, 2016.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                                                                                                              

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT.

 

PW-1: S. Khader Hussain (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTIES.

 

RW-1: B. Srinivasa Rao (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

                 EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT.

 

EXHIBITS (EX.A)	DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS
	Photo copy of ICICI Lombard Impugned Order. Dt: 11.05.2015.
	Photo copy of Two Wheeler Certificate-cum-Policy Schedule. Dt: 30.08.2014.
	Photo copy of Police Complainant. Dt: 13.10.2014.
	Photo copy of First Information Report. Dt: 13.10.2014.
	Photo copy of Un-detectable Certificate given by Police. Dt: 30.06.2015.
	Office copy of Legal Notice. Dt: 11.06.2015.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

EXHIBITS (EX.B)	DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS
	Photo copy of Letter addressed to the complainant by the Opposite Parties filed on behalf of the third Opposite Party. Dt: 11.05.2015.
	Photo copy of Motor theft claim form submitted by the complainant filed on behalf of the third Opposite Party. Dt: 24.11.2014.
	Photo copy of Certificate of policy issued to the vehicle pertaining to the complainant by the Opposite Parties filed on behalf of the third Opposite Party. Dt: 30.08.2014.
	Photo copy of the FIR in Crime No.386/2014 of CCS, Tirupati, filed on behalf of the third Opposite Party. Dt: 13.10.2014.
	Photo copy of Investigation report submitted by Independent Investigator filed on behalf of the third Opposite Party. Dt: 06.12.2014.
	Photo copy of Letter addressed to the complainant by the Opposite Parties filed on behalf of the third Opposite Party. Dt: 02.01.2015.

 

                                                                                                                       Sd/-                           

                                                                                                               President

 

             // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

               Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

          

  

 

 Copies to:-    1. The complainant.

                       2. The opposite parties.