Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/71/2016

Mamuduru Siva Prasad, S/o M.Veeraiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M.Vani, P.Murali Krishna reddy

25 Oct 2017

ORDER

Filing Date: 22.07.2016

Order Date:25.10.2017

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.71/2016

 

 

Between

 

 

Mamuduru Siva Prasad,

S/o. M.Veeraiah,

Hindu, aged about 36 years,

Private Employee,

D.No.6-19-S8-629, Singalagunta,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                              … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

The Divisional Manager,

National Insurance Co. Ltd.,

D.No.13/3/276/277, Railway Feeder Road,

Anantapur.                                                                                        …  Opposite party.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 12.10.17 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing M.Vani, counsel for complainant, and G.Gajendra, counsel for the opposite party, 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 –12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant against the opposite party for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards insurance claim on account of loss of the vehicle, 2) to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and monetary loss to the complainant, and 3) to direct the opposite party to pay the costs of the complaint, and pass such other orders and further reliefs as the Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.  

            2. The brief averments of the complaint are:-  That the complainant has purchased a used Indica DLS car bearing  No.AP-02-AA-6413, and the said car was insured with opposite party under policy No.551000/31/11/6100000450. As per the terms of the policy, opposite party has agreed to indemnify the complainant in loss on account of accident or theft of the vehicle. The policy is in force up to 08.08.2012. That the vehicle was stolen by some unknown persons on 24.07.2012 at about 6 a.m. at Tirupati. In this connection, a complaint was lodged before Alipiri Police Station, on which a case in crime No.245/2012 was registered under Section-379 IPC and took-up investigation, as the police cannot trace the car, they filed final report stating that the vehicle is undetectable. Immediately the complainant made insurance claim, but the opposite party did not take any action. Finally on 23.07.2014, the claim was repudiated by the opposite party unlawfully and thus the complainant was subjected to much mental agony and monetary loss.

            3.  That the complainant has permitted his friend K.Mohan Reddy, to use his car and subsequently he was agreed that the car to be sold to K.Mohan Reddy. Infact the registration of the car was transferred in the name of K.Mohan Reddy on 30.07.2012, as per the records of R.T.A., Tirupati. By the date of theft of the car, it was in the name of the complainant and he is the lawful owner. But infact as early as on 06.08.2012, a report was made to the opposite party along with original R.C., policy copy, FIR and other documents along with keys were taken by the opposite party and an endorsement was made on the letter, and a copy of the same was given to the complainant. Thus all the original documents are with the opposite party, repudiation of claim is unlawful and unjust. Hence the complaint.

            4.  The opposite party filed his written version, denying parawise allegations in the complaint, and further contended that one M.Sivaprasad (complainant) insured his vehicle bearing No.AP-02-AA-6413 with opposite party under policy No.551000/31/11/6100004503. The policy was in force from 09.08.2011 to 08.08.2012. That on 06.08.2012 one K.Mohan Reddy, gave an intimation to the opposite party stating that he is residing at D.No.6-10-213, Singalagunta, Tirupati, while his car bearing No.AP-02-AA-6413, was parked and duly locked on 24.07.2012 at about 10 p.m. at his house, on the next day i.e. on 25.07.2012 morning at about       6 a.m., he found his car was stolen by thieves. The FIR in crime No.245/2012 of Alipiri P.S., reveals that K.Mohan Reddy is the owner of Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP-02-AA-6413. The police filed final report stating that the vehicle is undetectable.

            5.  That the said K.Mohan Reddy, submitted the claim form on 06.08.2012. On scrutinizing the documents by the opposite party, it is found that the policy was not transferred to the name of K.Mohan Reddy and it is still in the name of M.Sivaprasad. As on the date of theft 24.07.2012, the policy was in the name of M.Sivaprasad. As the vehicle is sold, possession is delivered, the policy also shall be transferred within 15 days, as per Section-157 (ii) of M.V.Act. It is mandatory. As, no policy is transferred in the name of K.Mohan Reddy, he is not entitled to any claim for theft of his car, as he has no insurable interest on the vehicle. Therefore, opposite party denied the claim of K.Mohan Reddy, and the same was communicated to K.Mohan Reddy. Under the above circumstances, the present complaint was filed. The complainant herein step into the shoes of K.Mohan Reddy, to get the claim on the car in question. On perusal of the registration certificate, it reveals that the said car was transferred in favour of K.Mohan Reddy from complainant on 30.07.2012, by which date the complainant is not in possession of the vehicle. Therefore, the transfer is invalid. The complainant made complaint to ombudsman and also Central Information Commission, for non-payment of insurance amount, for theft of the vehicle, but he did not appear before the Central Information Commission. The complainant also made a grievance online, for which the opposite party gave letter to the complainant on 23.07.2014 by register post stating that his claim cannot be accepted on the ground that the complainant did not comply with the basic principles of “insurable interest”. The complainant never informed the police about the theft of his vehicle, but the vehicle was sold to K.Mohan Reddy and it was stolen while in his possession. Neither the complainant nor K.Mohan Reddy, approached the opposite party for transfer of insurance policy. The complainant came with a new version in para.6 of his complaint that K.Mohan Reddy is his friend and he permitted K.Mohan Reddy to use his vehicle and subsequently it was agreed to sell the car to K.Mohan Reddy. This version is not correct and it is invented to get wrongful gain. If the complainant is the real owner of the car, he would have lodged a complaint before the police stating that he handed-over the car to his friend and it was stolen while in the possession of his friend K.Mohan Reddy. The complainant is not entitled to any relief sought for and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

            6.  Complainant filed his evidence affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. The opposite party filed its evidence affidavit as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B10. Both the parties have submitted their written arguments, which are part and parcel of the case record.

            7.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether the repudiation order dt:23.07.2014 issued by opposite party is

                   justified?

            (ii).  Whether the complainant is entitled to the insurance claim and other

                   reliefs sought for?

            (iii)  To what relief?

            8.  Point No.(i):-   To answer this point, the burden lies on the complainant, to prove that the repudiation orders issued by the opposite party under Ex.B8 dt:23.07.2014 is illegal and unjust. The complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP-02-AA-6413, as per Ex.A1 photocopy of letter issued by the R.T.A., Chittoor, in respect of the insured vehicle, date of registration is 17.11.2008. That the complainant has insured his vehicle with the opposite party for the period from 09.08.2011 to 08.08.2012 under policy No. (according to complainant) 551000/31/11/6100000450. According to the complaint and evidence affidavit of complainant as P.W.1, the vehicle was stolen by some unknown persons, while it was parked at the house of one K.Mohan Reddy, said to be the friend of complainant, on 24.07.2012 at Tirupati. The said K.Mohan Reddy, reported the theft to Alipiri P.S., on which a case in crime No.245/2012 under Section-379 IPC was registered and took-up investigation. The police filed the final report under Ex.A3 and Ex.B5 stating that the vehicle is undetectable. The repudiation letter dt:23.07.2014 was given by the opposite party and it was marked as Ex.A4 on behalf of the complainant.

            9.  In this regard, the admitted facts are  that the registration No. of the vehicle is AP-02-AA-6413, Name of the owner of the vehicle is M.Sivaprasad, complainant herein, date of theft as per FIR under Ex.A2 is 24.07.2012. The claim form was submitted to the opposite party under Ex.B1 by K.Mohan Reddy, but not the complainant, who is the owner of the vehicle. Though the insurance policy is in force on the date of theft, K.Mohan Reddy, who is said to be the friend of complainant, has submitted the claim form. The said K.Mohan Reddy, is neither the owner of the vehicle nor had any insurable interest over the vehicle by the date of theft, as such the opposite party has repudiated the claim made by K.Mohan Reddy. The claim was made on 06.08.2012 under Ex.B1 by K.Mohan Reddy. The complainant in his complaint stated that he permitted his friend K.Mohan Reddy to use his car, while so, the same was stolen by some unknown persons on 24.07.2012. So far, the complainant neither lodged any complaint before the police nor given intimation to the opposite party, nor made any claim over his vehicle, which was stolen by unknown persons. The intimation was given to opposite party by K.Mohan Reddy along with claim form on 06.08.2012, though policy stood in the name of complainant M.Sivaprasad. There is delay of about 9 days in lodging complaint as per Ex.A2, which was lodged on 02.08.2012. Similarly, there is delay of intimation to the opposite party insurance company around 12 days about the theft of the vehicle in question. Delay in intimation to opposite party and delay in lodging complaint in respect of theft of the vehicle is fatal.

10.  In this regard, I am relying on a decision reported in NCDRC, New Delhi – R.P.No.4444(2012) Sarfarjudeen Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. – the brief facts of the said decision are, the petitioner/complainant Sarfarjudeen is the registered owner of truck number HR-38 J 4186 got his truck insured with respondent No. 1 (New India Assurance Company Ltd.) for the period from 21.07.2005 to 20.07.2006 for a sum of Rs.5,00,100/-. The truck of the complainant was stolen on 21.09.2005 from the possession of one Ashok Kumar who is respondent no. 2 herein. The said Ashok Kumar lodged a report of theft with the Police bearing FIR No. 329 dated 25.09.2005 at the local police station. The petitioner / complainant intimated respondent No. 1 insurance company on 21.10.2005 regarding the theft of the truck and also submitted a copy of the FIR, registration certificate and insurance cover note. However, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the respondent / insurance company and hence the complaint was filed by him before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint by directing the respondent / insurance company to pay the insured amount Rs.5,00,100/- to the petitioner with interest @9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment and also to pay Rs.2,200/- towards litigation expenses. The Insurer  challenged the order of the District Forum before the State Commission by filing First Appeal No. 1500/2011. The State Commission allowed the appeal on 18.09.2012, setting aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. Hence the revision petition. The Hon’ble National Commission held that “we may note that there was delay of four days in lodging the FIR and admittedly, the intimation about the information of theft was sent to the Insurance Company after a month of the theft. The terms of the policy require immediate action in such cases and as per settled law, such delay in the case of theft would result in outright repudiation of the claim because delay in lodging the FIR or intimating the Insurance Company would be disastrous to the interests of the Insurance Company and the same constitutes violation of a fundamental condition of the insurance contract. On this count in addition to the observation made by the State Commission, claim of the petitioner was liable for repudiation. The revision petition is dismissed, no order as to costs. Similarly, the Hon’ble National Commission, in another case in Revision Petition No.4749/2013 in Shriram General Insurance Co. Vs. Mahender Jat – held that claim application was rejected on the ground that the claimant violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by not intimating about the theft of his vehicle in time. The claimant / complainant filed the case before the District Forum, Ajmer, which dismissed the complaint holding that the terms and conditions were violated by the complainant, as he did not informed the theft to insurance company immediately after the theft (delay of 23 days in intimating to the insurance company about the theft of the vehicle) by order dt:17.02.2012.  The complainant filed first appeal No.328/2012 before Rajasthan State Commission, which allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum, and opposite party insurance company was directed to pay Rs.30,000/- insured amount and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses within 30 days failing which interest at the rate of 9% p.a. is payable on the above amount. Hence the revision petition. The Hon’ble National Commission on the revision petition filed by the insurance company, allowed the revision petition, setting aside the order of the State Commission and upheld the order of the District Forum and upheld repudiation is justified. The Hon’ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Harchand Rai observed that delay in intimation to insurance company in theft case is fatal.

11. In view of the above decisions and on further grounds that as on the date of theft (24.07.2012) K.Mohan Reddy is not the owner of the car. The complainant M.Sivaprasad is the owner of the car, the complainant had not made any claim form claiming insurance amount from the opposite party admittedly so far. The complainant did not either lodged a complaint before the police with regard to theft of the vehicle or informed the opposite party about the theft of his vehicle so far. The complaint before police was lodged by K.Mohan Reddy on 02.08.2012 i.e. about      10 days after the theft. Intimation along with claim form by K.Mohan Reddy was given to opposite party on 06.08.2012 i.e. about 14 days after the theft. According to complaint and evidence affidavit of P.W.1 / complainant, registration of his vehicle was transferred to K.Mohan Reddy on 30.07.2012, by which date the vehicle was not in the possession of either K.Mohan Reddy or with the complainant (as it was already stolen on 24.07.2012). How the transfer of vehicle was effected, when the vehicle was not available? as it was stolen by some unknown persons about 6 days prior to transfer of registration of the vehicle / transfer of ownership of the vehicle. No evidence is placed before this Forum either by complainant or by K.Mohan Reddy that they have applied for transfer of insurance policy in the name of K.Mohan Reddy within 15 days of transfer of registration of the vehicle, as contemplated under Section-157(ii) of M.V.Act.

12.  According to complainant, he mentioned the policy number in the complaint as well as in the evidence affidavit and also in written arguments as 551000/31/11/6100000450. But infact the attested copy of insurance policy under Ex.B2 shows the insurance policy number as 551000/31/11/6100004503. So, the insurance policy number given by the complainant is not tallied to that of the insurance policy. The complainant did not file any documentary proof that he has transferred the vehicle in favour of K.Mohan Reddy on 30.07.2012. Therefore, as on the date of theft, K.Mohan Reddy was neither the owner of the vehicle nor has the insurable interest. Therefore, the claim made by K.Mohan Reddy was properly and rightly repudiated by the opposite party. That apart the complainant M.Sivaprasad, has not made any claim so far over his stolen vehicle, and no intimation was given by him to opposite party regarding theft of his vehicle, and according to intimation given by K.Mohan Reddy with claim form, there was delay of 14 days in intimating the opposite party about the theft of the vehicle. Similarly, there was a delay of 8 days in lodging FIR. Therefore, it was fatal to the case and K.Mohan Reddy has no insurable interest, and as there was no claim from the complainant, the repudiation order passed by the opposite party dt:23.07.2014 under Ex.A4, which is equivalent to Ex.B8 is justified. Accordingly, this point is answered.

13.  Point No.(ii):-  To answer this point, we have to state that, as on the date of theft of the vehicle bearing No.AP-02-AA-6413, the claimant K.Mohan Reddy is neither the owner of the vehicle nor has any insurable interest. The owner of the vehicle bearing No. AP-02-AA-6413, which was stolen by some unknown persons on 24.07.2012, has not made any claim so far over his stolen vehicle and that he neither gave intimation to the opposite party about the theft of his vehicle so far, and the transfer of registration of the vehicle on 30.07.2012 is also cannot be sustained, as the vehicle was already stolen by some unknown persons about 6 days prior to the said transfer of registration of the vehicle. K.Mohan Reddy has no insurable interest and the complainant has not made any claim so far. The delay in lodging FIR and also in intimating the opposite party about the theft of the vehicle is fatal to the case of the complainant. That apart, the insurance policy number is also varies from documentary evidence to that of the details mentioned by the complainant. As was discussed supra in point No.1, though the policy was in force by the date of theft of the vehicle, complainant has not made any claim, as the policy was stood in the name of the complainant as on the date of theft and K.Mohan Reddy has no insurable interest, as such his claim cannot be sustained, and the opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim made by K.Mohan Reddy. Under those circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for including the claim over his vehicle bearing No. AP-02-AA-6413 Indica Car, as there was no claim from the complainant and therefore he is not entitled for the reliefs sought for. Accordingly this point is answered.

14.  Point No.(iii):-  In view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the repudiation orders passed by the opposite party under Ex.A4 equivalent to Ex.B8 is proper and justified, that neither K.Mohan Reddy has any insurable interest over the vehicle, as he is neither owner of the vehicle nor policy transferred in his name, and that complainant is also not entitled for any of the reliefs on the ground that he has not made any claim over the stolen vehicle, and the delay in lodging FIR as well as delay in giving intimation to the opposite party about the theft of the vehicle are fatal, and the complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 25^th day of October, 2017.

 

        Sd/-                                                                                                                     Sd/-                               

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: Mamuduru Siva Prasad (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: KSRCS Vidya Sagar (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of Letter issued by the R.T.A, Chittoor with respect to the ownership of the insured vehicle. Date of Registration: 17.11.2008.
	Photo copy of F.I.R. in crime No.245/2012. Dt: 02.08.2012.
	Final report issued by the Inspector of Police, Alipiri P.S., Tirupati in Original.
	Repudiation letter issued by the opposite party. Dt: 23.07.2014 in Original.
	Photo copies of Correspondences made by the complainant with the opposite party.  Dt: 06.08.2012.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Motor claim form submitted by K. Mohan Reddy. Dt: 06.08.2012.
	Attested true copy of (Duplicate) Insurance Policy for the Policy No-551000/31/11/6100004503 in the name of N. Siva Prasad. Period of Insurance from 09.08.2011 to 08.08.2012.
	FIR along with complaint copy given to the police by K. Mohan Reddy. FIR No.245/2012. Dt: 02.08.2012.
	Intimation letter submitted to opposite party by K. Mohan Reddy. Dt: 06.08.2012.
	Photo copy of Final Report in Crime No.245/2012 of Alipiri P.S., Tirupati,  Copy submitted  by the opposite parties.
	Letter issued to K. Mohan Reddy by the Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Ananthapur. Dt: 13.12.2013.
	Letter submitted to the opposite party by K. Mohan Reddy. Dt: 04.01.2014.
	Letter sent to M. Siva Prasad by opposite party. Dt: 23.07.2014.
	Letter sent to the D.G.M, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Hyderabad by Assistant/ Secretary, Office of the Insurance Ombudsman. Dt: 23.09.2014.

 

 

	Letter sent to Dy. Secretary and Dy. Registrar, Central Information Commission, New Delhi by Divisional Manager cum Central Public Information Officer, Ananthapuramu Divisional Office, Ananthapuramu. Dt: 10.07.2015.

 

                                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                                                                  President

    

                                   // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

          Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

    

   Copies to:- 1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite party.