Date of Filing:13.05.2009<br /> Date of Order:09.09.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 09TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1118 OF 2009<br /> <br /> Smt. Radha,<br /> W/o K.S. Udayakuimar,<br /> R/at No. 59, I Cross, <br /> I Main, Balagi Layout,<br /> Vidya Peeta road,<br /> Banashankari III Stage,<br /> Bangalore-85. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> The Divisional Manager,<br /> The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,<br /> Divisional Office-11,<br /> No.663, I Floor,<br /> I Main, Defence Colony,<br /> Indira Nagar, I Main, <br /> Bangalore-38. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed u/Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant was the owner of Maruthi Omni Vehicle bearing No. KA-03-2310. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite party. Policy was in force from 06/03/2007 to 05/03/2008. The complainant had obtained loan from A.M. Finance Ltd., by hypothecating the vehicle. On 14/10/2007 she came to know that said vehicle has been stolen when the same was parked near Gopi Garage at K.D. Road, Indira Nagar, Bangalore. The Driver of the vehicle Narayana Gowda was working under the complainant immediately on 15/10/2007 approached the Police Inspector, Indira Nagar and informed about the theft of the vehicle. The complainant submitted that she was held up in cremation and death ceremony of her deceased daughter in her village. Therefore, she could not personally made complaint to the Police. After return from the village on 10/01/2008 she lodged complaint before the Indira Nagar Police. Police authorities registered FIR in Crime No.08/08 The Manager of A.M. Finance Ltd., intimated the theft of the vehicle to the opposite party. On 16/09/2008 opposite party informed the Manager of A.M. Finance Ltd., that claim towards the vehicle has been approved for settlement of Rs. 1,07,000/-. The opposite party requested in the letter to issue NOC to the concerned RTO for cancellation of hypothecation clause. When such being the case, the complainant received a letter dated 17/11/2008 from the opposite party. The complainant shocked to receive the letter since opposite party denied the claim. Complainant’s claim was denied under unsustainable observations. The complainant got issued legal notice calling upon the opposite party to pay the amount approved by it. Opposite party denying the claim and therefore, it shows deficiency of service. Hence, the complaint. <br /> <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party appeared through counsel and submitted defence version filed. In para-5 of the version, opposite party stated as follows:-<br /> The averments in para 8 that when the Manager of AM Finance Ltd., intimated about the theft of the aforesaid vehicle to this complainant, this respondent by its letter dated 16/09/2008 inform the Manager of A.M. Finance Ltd. that the claim towards the theft of the vehicle have been approved or settlement of Rs. 1,07,000/- as the same was hypothecated to the said Finance Company and the said letter this respondent had requested for issue of NOC to the concern RTO for cancellation of hypothecation clause and further this respondent had informed that the claim amount would be made through cheque are admitted. This was done by oversight and prior to examining the documents relating to the case in detail. However, subsequent to verifying the police documents and other records relating to the theft of the vehicle, it has come to the knowledge of the respondent that the opposite party had grossly violated the terms and conditions of the policy and that the respondent for the reasons stated in their letter to your client dated 17/11/2008 has repudiated the claim and were justified in doing so. The opposite party admitted that vehicle was insured with the opposite party company. It is the case of the opposite party that there has been delay in lodging complaint of theft and delay has not been satisfactorily explained. Therefore, opposite party repudiated the claim.<br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of complaint Smt. Radha filed and documents are produced. On behalf of the opposite party affidavit evidence of Rajkumar, Divisional Manager has been filed. Arguments are heard. <br /> 4. In the light of the arguments advanced before us following points arise for consideration:<br /> 1. Whether there was deficiency in service on <br /> the part of opposite party?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether the repudiation of the claim put up <br /> by the complainant is justified?<br /> <br /> 3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim?<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. It is an admitted case that, the complainant Smt. Radha had insured Maruthi Omni vehicle bearing registration No. KA-03 2310 with the opposite party. The policy has been produced. The declared value of the vehicle was Rs. 1,20,000/-. The policy was in force from o64/03/2007 to 05/03/2008. It is the case of the complainant that on 14/10/2008 the vehicle has been stolen when the same was parked near Gopi Garage at K.D road, Indiranagar, Bangalore. Narayanagowda was the Driver of the vehicle informed the matter to the Indiranagar police on 15/10/2007. The complainant submitted that she was held up in cremation and death ceremony of her deceased daughter in the village, she could not personally give the complaint to the police. After return from village on 10/01/2008 she lodged formal complaint to the police informing the theft of the vehicle. The police registered a case in Crime No.08/08. The copy of FIR is also produced. The vehicle could not be traced out. Therefore, the Investigation Officer has submitted “C” report to the Jurisdictional Magistrate. The copy of “C” report is also produced. The complainant submitted that the vehicle was financed by A.M. Finance Ltd. The finance company intimated the theft of the vehicle to the opposite party. In response to the letter, the opposite party company has sent a letter to the letter to the Manager, A.M. Finance Ltd on 16/09/2008. It is better to quote the entire letter of the opposite party. <br /> <br /> DATE 16-09-2008.<br /> DEPT. Motor claims<br /> <br /> THE MANAGER<br /> A.M. FINANCE LTD.<br /> BALAJI COMPLEX NO.16,<br /> VEERAPAN STREET, 1st FLOOR,<br /> SOWCAR PET CHANNAI.600079<br /> <br /> Dear Sir<br /> <br /> Re: Theft of Vehicle No.KA-03-B-2310 MARUTHI <br /> OMNI INSURED: MRS. RADHA <br /> <br /> The above vehicle insured with us, the Vehicle was stolen on 14-10-2007 about 4-30 pm we are pleased to inform you that the said claim has been approved for settlement for Rs.107000/- only. Since the theft vehicle is hypothecated to you, you are requested to issue a No Objection Certificate to the concerned RTO for cancellation of the hypothecation clause, the claim amount in turn will be made over to you from us through cheque.<br /> <br /> Kindly treat the matter urgent<br /> <br /> Yours faithfully,<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Divisional Manager <br /> <br /> <br /> So, as per this letter, it is very clear that the opposite party has accepted the claim and informed the Finance Company that matter has been settled for Rs. 1,07,000/-. So, as per this letter the amount could have been paid to the A.M. Finance Ltd., by the opposite party after obtaining “No Objection Certificate” as stated in the said letter. But instead of paying the amount the opposite party company again by a letter dated 17/11/2008 informed the complainant Smt. Radha since there was violation of policy terms and conditions and claim cannot be considered for settlement and same was repudiated. After receiving this letter the complainant got issued legal notice to opposite party and demanded the settlement of the claim. Since the claim was not settled by the opposite party, the complainant was forced to approach this Fora for direction to the opposite party to approve the claim to a sum of Rs. 1,07,000/- and pay the amount. The opposite party in the letter dated 16/09/2008 has clearly mentioned that vehicle was stolen on 14/10/2007 at 4-30 PM and knowing fully well of the date of theft they have approved settlement for Rs.1,07,000/- and sent a letter to the Manager, A.M. Finance Ltd., and requested to issue NOC to the concerned RTO for cancellation of hypothecation clause and in the said letter it has been clearly mentioned that the claim amount in turn will be made over to Finance Company through cheque. When this is the position how can the opposite party again turn round and repudiate the claim without their being any valid and acceptable reasons. The fact of theft was known to the opposite party company when the first letter dated 16/09/2008 was sent to the A.M. Finance Ltd. At that time, the opposite party company had not taken objection that there was delay to inform the theft to the police and also to the insurance company. The delay if any caused in informing to the police had been condoned by the opposite party company itself by approving the settlement and sent a letter to the A.M. Finance Ltd. Apart from that, the complainant has informed in her complaint that she was held up in cremation and death ceremony of her deceased daughter in the village. Therefore, she could not personally able to file complaint to the jurisdictional police. When she returned back from her village to Bangalore she lodged formal police complaint, she has also stated in the complaint that her driver Narayanagowda immediately on 15/10/2007 approached the Police Inspector, Indiranagar and informed about the theft of the vehicle. So, under these circumstances, there was a sufficient and proper explanation on behalf of the complainant as to why there was delay in lodging police complaint. The complainant was in mental tension and unfortunately her daughter had died during the relevant time and she had to go to her native village for death ceremony of her daughter and naturally she was held up in the village in a very miserable condition. Therefore, she was not able to file police complaint immediately after theft of the vehicle. These are the proper and acceptable reasons that the opposite party company could have sympathetically considered the explanation and accepted the settlement and paid the amount. When there are two interpretations possible, interpretation which is favorable to the insured consumers shall be given effect to. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation, it is intended to protect better interest of the consumers. The intention of the Act is to give social justice to the people. The object of the Act is to be given effect by allowing the complaint. If the claim of the complainant is repudiated she will be put to great loss and unjustice. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances, this is a fit case to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,07,000/- to the A.M. Finance Ltd., as per their own letter dated 16/09/2008 since the vehicle was financed by the A.M. Finance Ltd. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 1,07,000/-, to A.M. Finance Ltd., within four weeks from the date of this order. <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> I concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER