Andhra Pradesh
Chittoor-II at triputi
CC/83/2016
Pagadala Kishore, S/o. P. Ramachandraiah - Complainant(s)
Versus
The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Complex, - Opp.Party(s)
P. Krishna Murthy
28 Jul 2017
ORDER
Filing Date:-31-08-2016 Order Date: 28-07-2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.
Present: - Sri. Ramakrishnaiah, President
Smt. T. Anitha, Member
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN
C.C.No.83/2016
Between
Pagadala Kishore,
S/o. P. Ramachandraiah,
R/o. Anand Apartments,
Chinthalachenu,
Tirupati, Chittoor District. … Complainant
And
The Divisional Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Divisional Office, Balaiah Complex,
1st Floor, Behind KVB Bank,
Near Anna Rao Circle,
K.T.Road, Tirupati,
Chittoor District. … Opposite party
This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 14.07.2017 and upon perusing the complaint, written arguments of the complainant and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.G.Guruparasad, and Sri.P.Krishna Murthy, counsels for the complainant and Sri. K.S.Vasu, counsel for the opposite party having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER
ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH
This complaint is filed under Sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the complainant complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite party and prayed this Forum to direct the opposite party to pay the insurance claim of Rs.2,70,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the claim i.e.08.07.2014 till the date of realization, directing the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for mental agony and deficiency in service, financial loss, hardship caused to the complainant and to pay costs of the complaint.
2. The brief facts of the case are: As the complainant is an un-employee, for eaking his livelihood he purchased a car of Tata Indica Vista TDI on 28-05-2014 for Rs.3,60,000/- bearing No. AP 03-TV-5444 under hire purchase agreement by taking the financial assistance from Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., and same got registered in his name by the Transport Registering Authority, Tirupati and he insured the vehicle with the opposite party under policy No. 432794/31/2014/193 for a value of Rs.2,70,000/- and the insurance period is covered for one year from 28.10.2013 to 27.10.2014. The complainant further stated that he is having valid effective driving license No.DLFAP003109492006 and also he got valid permit No.TYP:AP003/2952/AITC/2014 which was issued by the Transport Authority of Government of Andhra Pradesh.
The complainant further submits that on 05.07.2014 he parked the car as usual in Srinivasam car stand, Tirupati and waiting for customers. At about 12.10Pm four persons approached him and introduced themselves as C.I., Police Constable and home-guards of Ameerpet Police Station and hired the vehicle to visit Kalahasti, Kanipakam and Golden Temple and to drop them at Kadapa. Hence after fixing the hire he picked them to Srikalahasti there after Kanipakam and Golden Temple and around at 9.30pm the vehicle left for Kadapa. On the return journey to Kadapa the passengers of the car offered the complainant to have dinner with them and after having dinner when the car reached near Chittoor while he was driving, he noticed that he developed severe drowsiness and fell in an intoxicated condition and he is unable to understand what was happening to him. One of the passengers in the vehicle threatened and pushed him aside and drove the vehicle, because he became helpless as he is an intoxicated condition. Next day in the early hours when he gained consciousness he found that the vehicle was stopped near YSR Residency Hotel in Kadapa and he felt giddiness, at that time the persons in the vehicle forced him to get down the vehicle and asked him to enquire whether the rooms were available in the hotel. In the condition of giddiness he went to the hotel and enquired about the rooms and when came out, he surprised that the vehicle was left the place where he parked the vehicle, hence he searched the surroundings and he could not found the vehicle and also stated that the documents pertaining to the vehicle are also kept in the vehicle only and also stated that the persons who hired the vehicle mixed some intoxicated substance in the food at the time of dinner in night and escaped with the vehicle. Hence the complainant gave the complaint in Chinnachowk Police Station, Kadapa and same was registered under FIR No. 165/2014 dt: 07-07-2014 U/s 379 and 420 of IPC. The police investigated the case and it is revealed from the report as upon their sincere efforts were made out to apprehend the actual offenders who were responsible for the offence and also to detect the stolen vehicle but in vain, and the case was treated as undetectable. On the basis of the police report, the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Kadapa passed the orders vide proceedings dt: 04-04-2016 treating the case was undetectable.
3. The complainant further submits that he intimated about theft to opposite party and made a claim on 08.07.2014 before the opposite party and same was duly acknowledged by the opposite party and also he forwarded an intimation letter to the RTO, Tirupati regarding the theft of the vehicle. The opposite party kept silent even after several requests made by the complainant to settle the claim and after lapse of two years the opposite party issued a letter dt:30.06.2016 stating that the claim of the complainant was repudiated. Hence the complainant stated that the repudiation of his claim was totally vague, baseless and illegal and against the provisions of law. And the complainant stated that he has not violated the terms and conditions of policy and duly complied with all the requirements and strictly adhered to the legal requirements in the usage of the vehicle. Hence, the grounds mentioned for repudiation by the opposite party are all false, baseless and unsustainable. The complainant further stated that he maintained the vehicle in very good condition and the vehicle which was stolen by the miscreants by cheating him and he promptly reported to the opposite party about the theft. And by the date of the theft he is having valid insurance policy, vehicle registration, driving license and permit are in force, hence the opposite party is liable to pay the claim to the complainant as per insurance policy and as per the provisions of the law.
The complainant further submits that he entirely dependent on the vehicle for eking his livelihood, as due to the theft of the vehicle he is unable to repay the loan availing under hire purchase agreement and thereby the financiers are pressurizing and harassing him for payment of the loan. Hence the acts of the opposite party by repudiating the claim amounts to clear negligence and deficiency in service on part of the opposite party. Hence he filed the present complaint.
4. The opposite party came in to appearance and filed the written version by admitting the policy of the complainant and rest of the allegations were denied. The opposite party further contended that they have repudiated the claim of the complainant on 30.06.2016 and same was intimated to the complainant. The grounds for repudiation were very much mentioned in the letter issued to the complainant. But the complainant has suppressed the reason and filed this false and frivolous complaint. The opposite party further contended that the complainant has handed over the keys of the vehicle to the unknown persons and allowed them to drive the vehicle which gave scope for the theft of the vehicle which he has not supposed to do. Only because of the irresponsibility and careless of the complainant the vehicle was stolen.
The opposite party further contended that as per condition No.4 of the policy “The Insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage”. And also contended that in the present case the complainant failed to take reasonable care to safeguard the vehicle and he himself is responsible for the alleged theft and he has not qualify for any compensation as the latches on part of him. The opposite party further contend that the complainant he himself left the vehicle in the custody of the unknown persons and went out to enquire for rooms in a hotel which clearly shows that negligent attitude of the complainant which leads for the stolen of the vehicle. Hence because of the latches on part of the complainant to safe guard his vehicle the vehicle was got stolen and he is not liable for any claim and moreover he has violated policy conditions hence he cannot claim any compensation from the opposite party. Hence the complainant is not liable for any policy amount because of his negligent attitude only the vehicle was stolen, hence there is no deficiency of service on part of them and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex: A1 to A15 were marked on behalf of him. On behalf of the opposite party B. Sundar, S/o. B.A.Krishnan, Assistant Manager of opposite party’s insurance company filed his evidence on affidavit and got marked Ex:B1 to B3. Both parties filed their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.
6. Now the points for consideration are:
(i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties
towards the complainant?
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? If so?
(iii) To what Relief?
7.Point No:-(i). There is no dispute regarding the policy taken by the complainant from the opposite party and same was admitted by the opposite party. The main contention of the complainant is as he is an un-employee, for his livelihood he purchased a car Tata Indica Vista on 28.05.2014 for Rs.3,60,000/- by availing finance from Shriram Finance Co. Ltd., and same was registered from the Transport Authority under Ex:A4 and also he is having valid driving license which is Ex:A2 and he obtained permit from Government of Andhra Pradesh i.e.Ex:A5. The complainant further stated that on 05.07.2014 at Srinivasam car stand, Tirupati at about 12.10pm four persons approached him and introduced themselves as C.I., Police constables, home-guards of Ameerpet Police Station, Hyderabad and hired his car in order to visit Kalahasti , Kanipakam and Golden Temple and drop them at Kadapa. Believing the words of them the complainant fixed the hire and taken them to Srikalahasti and thereafter reached Kanipakam and Golden temple and around 9.30Pm in the return journey to Kadapa from Golden temple, near Chittoor they asked the complainant to have dinner with them. After having dinner when he resumed driving when the car reached near Puthalapattu suddenly he developed dizziness and he could not understand what was happening to him and one of the persons in the vehicle dragged him and pushed him aside and drove the vehicle and he became helpless as he in intoxicated condition. Next day in the early hours when he gained conscious he found that the vehicle was stopped near YSR residency hotel in Kadapa and he was feeling the giddiness, at that time the persons in the car forced him to get down the car and find that if the rooms were available in the hotel. In that condition he went to the hotel and enquired and came out, but he surprised that the vehicle was missing. Hence he searched the vehicle in the surroundings but in vain he lodged a complaint and registered the case in Chinnachowk police station, Kadapa.
8. The complainant further stated that he lodged a complaint and registered a case in Chinnachowk police station, kadapa in FIR No.165/15 on 07.07.2014 i.e. Ex: A6. The police investigated the case and it is revealed in their report with sincere and sustain efforts were made out to apprehend actual offenders who were responsible for offence and also to detect the stolen vehicle but in vain, and the case was treated as un detectable i.e. Ex:A8. The complainant further stated that he submitted his claim on 08.07.2014 to the opposite party and same was repudiated by the opposite party by way of letter dt: 30.06.2016 which is totally have baseless, illegal and against the provisions of law.
The counsel for the opposite party resisted the contentions of the complainant and argued that the complainant himself handed over the keys to the third party and allowed them to drive the vehicle, which gave scope for theft of the vehicle and he himself left the vehicle in the custody of strange persons and went out to enquire for room in a hotel. Only because of the complainant’s carelessness and negligent attitude the vehicle got stolen and the complainant has miserably failed to take all reasonable steps to safe guard the vehicle from loss or damage and he himself stated that he was in intoxicated condition at the time of the theft. Hence the complainant has not complied with the requirements of the insurance policy and violated the policy condition No.5 hence his claim was repudiated and intimated to the complainant on 30.06.2016 under Ex.B3. The counsel for the opposite party relied on decisions of NCDRC in R.P.No.1796/2015 our lordship held that admittedly in the instant case, the driver of the vehicle left the vehicle unmanned with keys in the ignition which facilitated the theft of the vehicle. This clearly amounts to breach of the condition No.5 of the insurance contract. But the facts of the case cited above are different from the facts on hand hence aforesaid judgments will not applicable to the present case.
9. The counsel for the complainant further argued that he submitted his claim to the opposite party on 08.07.2014 immediately on occurrence of the theft, but the opposite party kept silent for two years and finally on 30.06.2016 i.e. after lapse of two years they repudiated the claim which is illegal and against the principles of natural justice and reported the decision of National Commision CPJ 2013 IV Page 218 NC our lordship held that “Insurance-theft of vehicle-driver forgot to remove keys from ignition switch – violation of condition of policy alleged – claim repudiated – alleged deficiency in service – District Forum allowed complaint – State Commission allowed appeal – Hence revision – Leaving of key in ignition of car on all occasions cannot be termed as so serious breach so as to disentitle insured from seeking claim under insurance policy – If in the hurry to answer c all of nature driver forgot to remove keys from ignition switch he cannot be said to have committed willful breach of terms of condition – Repudiation not justified”.
In the present case also the car is said to have been stolen when the driver parked the vehicle in front of the hotel and went to enquire about the vacancy of the rooms with the instructions of the persons who hired the vehicle. Hence he cannot be said to have committed willful breach of violation of terms of the condition no.5 of the policy. Repudiation of claim made by the insurance company was also found to be invalid for the reason that sincere driver was not expected to carry key of the vehicle with him while getting down from the vehicle to attend natures call, particularly when the vehicle was within the sight.
10. In the present case also the driver with the due instructions of the passengers got down the vehicle to enquire about the rooms. Hence he has not expected that the miscreants of the vehicle will steal the vehicle. The counsel for the complainant relied on the decision “2008(4) ALT 4 SC our lordship held that in case of theft of vehicle breach condition of insurance policy is not germane – nature of use of the vehicle cannot be looked into – Insurance Company cannot repudiated the claim on that basis – view of the State Commission allowing only 75% claim of the respondent on non standard basis cannot be faulted.
Hence in view of the discussion above and after perusal of the record filed by both the parties we found that the insurance company erred in repudiating the claim of the complainant which is nothing but deficiency in service on part of the opposite party towards the complainant. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.
11. Point(ii):- In view of our holding on point no.1 we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite party towards the complainant. In the present case the complainant prayed this Forum to direct the opposite party to pay the insurance claim of Rs.2,70,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the claim i.e. 08.07.2014 till realization. But in this case it is reasonable to grant 70% of the policy amount on non-standard basis i.e. Rs.1,89,000/- which is the 70% of the policy amount of Rs.2,70,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of the claim i.e. 08.07.2014 till realization. And also the complainant is entitled of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
12.Point (iii):- In view of our discussion on points 1 an 2, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite party, hence the complaint is allowed.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1,89,000/- which is 70% of the claim amount of Rs.2,70,000/- on non standard basis along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the claim i.e. 08.07.2014 till realization. The opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and deficiency in service and the opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. The opposite party is further directed to comply with the order within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which the compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) also shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of receipt of copy of this order till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 28th day of July, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
Lady Member President
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.
PW-1: Pagadala Kishore (Chief Affidavit filed).
Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.
RW-1: B. Sunder (Chief Affidavit filed).
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s
Exhibits (Ex.A) | Description of Documents |
Motor Insurance Certificate cum policy schedule issued by the opposite party (True Copy). Dt: 29.05.2014. | |
Photo copy of Renewed Driving Licence of the complainant. Period from 03.11.2015 to 01.09.2026. | |
Photo copy of latest renewed Driving Licence of the complainant. Issued on 02.11.2015. | |
Photo copy of Registration Certificate (Period of validity from 30.11.2011 to 26.11.2014). Dt: 28.05.2014. | |
Photo copy of Permit in Respect of Particular All India Tourist Vehicles issued by the Transport Department, Govt. of A.P. Permit No: TVP: AP003/2952/AITC/2014. | |
Photo copy of F.I.R. FIR No: 165/14. Dt: 07.07.2014. | |
Photo copy of requisition letter sent to RTO, Tirupati, regarding theft vehicle (No.AP03TV5444 ) information entry in your records. Dt: 15.11.2014. | |
Photo copy of Un Detectable Certificate issued by Inspector of Police, Chinnachowk U/G P S, Kadapa. Dt: 22.12.2015. | |
Photo copy (Duplicate Copy) of Notice received by the complainant from Inspector of Police, Chinnachowk U/G P S, Kadapa. Dt: 18.02.2016. | |
Photo copy of Proceedings of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Kadapa. Dt: 04.04.2016. Crime Number: 165/2014. | |
Letter (in Original) issued by opposite party i.e., The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd, Tirupati. Dt: 30.06.2016. | |
Certified true extract of Vehicle Registration Certificate (Form-24, B-Register of Motor Vehicle). Motor Vehicle No.AP03TV5444. Date of Registration Valid from 30.11.2011 to 26.11.2014(In Original). | |
Certificate of vehicle permit issued by the Asst. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor (A.P) on 28.01.2017 in Original. | |
Certified true copy of FIR along with certified true copy of Docket Orders of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Kadapa. | |
Laminated Color photo copy of Driving Licence of the complainant. D.L.No.DLFAP003109492006. Issued on 02.11.2015. |
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s
Exhibits (Ex.B) | Description of Documents |
Motor Insurance Certificate cum Policy Schedule PCCV-4 wheelers issued by The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Akkarampalli, Tirupati, Chittoor District in Original of the policy of TATA Indica Car No.AP03TV5444. Policy No.432794/31/2014/193. Dt: 29.05.2014. | |
FIR copy in FIR No.165/2014(True Copy). Dt: 07.07.2014. | |
Letter (in Original) issued by opposite party i.e., The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd, Tirupati. Dt: 30.06.2016. |
Sd/-
President
// TRUE COPY //
// BY ORDER //
Head Clerk/Sheristadar,
Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.
Copies to: 1) The Complainant
2) The Opposite party.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.