DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala
Dated this the 29th day of August, 2011
Present: Smt.Preetha G Nair, Member
: Smt.Bhanumathi A.K. Member Date of filing: 19/10/2010
CC.No.126/2010
Abdul Sathar,
'Sartaj',
M.S. Road,
Cherakkara, -Complainant
Thalassery,
Kerala.
(Adv. U.Suresh and K. Dhananjayan)
Vs
1. The Divisional Manager,
M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd,
2nd Floor, Vishnu Building,
K.P. Valluvan road,
Kadavanthra, Cochin-20
-Opposite parties
2. M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd,
570-Rectifier House,
Naiguam Cross Road,
Wadala-(W),
Mumbai 400031
(Adv. Ullas Sudhakaran)
O R D E R
BY SMT. PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER
Complainant was the registered owner of a motor car of TATA Indica, bearing chassis No: PA7745 Engine No: P80600 and Regn.No: KL-13/P 3557. The car was having a valid insurance policy taken from the opposite party known as private car package policy No:2202372311103332. The policy was valid from 06/10/2007 to 05/12/2008. The complainant has remitted a total comprehensive premium amount of Rs.5879/-. As per the terms and conditions of the policy the complainant is entitled to get the total sum of Rs.2,25,000/- in the event of any loss or damage caused to the car. The complainant's car was parked in front of his son-in-law Abdul Rasheed's house at Mettupalayam street, Palakkad on 23/08/2008, the car had been stolen between the night hours of 23/08/2008 and 24/08/2008. On 25/08/2008 the complainant's son-in-law Abdul Rasheed had a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Town north, Palakkad and registered a crime No: 430/2008 under Section 379 of IPC. They had begun their investigation immediately but the vehicle had not been found out. After the incident the complainant had intimated about the loss to the opposite parties also. But they have not settled the claim and then filed a claim petition. Opposite party has received it and issued the claim letter bearing No: 2091305047. Then the opposite party had issued a show cause letter to the complainant that there is a delay in lodging the claim and as it amounts to the violation of policy condition. Thereafter the complainant sent another letter to the opposite parties on 27/10/2010 requesting to satisfy the claim immediately. Again as a last resort to settle the issue the complainant has issued a lawyer notice to the opposite party on april, 2010. The opposite party has not sent any reply. Now the complainant feels that the intention of opposite party is to forfeit the claim and they are not genuinely interested to settle the claim. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 2,25,000/- along with a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the mental agony and pay the cost of the proceedings.
Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions. The opposite parties admitted that the car having a valid insurance package policy bearing policy No: 2202372311103332. The opposite parties not aware of the claims made by the complainant that soon after the incident Abdul Rasheed (Complainant's son-in-law) had preferred a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police. As per the policy condition Number-1, the insured should intimate the insurer regarding the loss and should prefer the claim immediately and if there is a delay in intimating the loss immediately the insurer can legally repudiate the claim put forward by the insured. The mandatory policy condition regarding the immediate intimation of the incident is incorporated for the purpose of detection and prevention of bogus claims. There was inordinate delay on the part of the complainant in intimating the incident to the opposite parties. The allegations made by the complainant that the opposite party had repudiated his claim on flimsy grounds. Therefore the opposite parties prayed that dismiss the complainant with cost.
Both parties filed their affidavits and documents. Ext.A1 to A8 marked on the side of complainant. Ext.B1 to B2 marked on the side of opposite parties. Matter was heard.
Issues to be considered are,
1.Whether therte is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, What is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant?
Issues I & II
Heard and perused the relevant documents on record. In Ext.A1 complainant is the registered owner of the Tata Indica as the registered No: KL13/P 3557. In Ext.A2 the FIR No:430/08 registered under Section 379 of IPC and the statement of complainant's son-in-law Abdul Rasheed stated that the vehicle was stolen. In Ext.A7 there is a valid policy from 06/12/2007 to 05/12/2008 of the complainant's car. In Ext.A4 the complainant sent a letter to the opposite parties for claim amount dated 27/01/2010. In Ext.A8 dated 20/07/2009 the Sub Inspector of Police has referred the case as undetected as referred case No: 38/2009. In Ext.A5 the 1st opposite party stated that there is a delay almost than 16 months in intimation of claim. No evidence was produced by both parties to show the date of intimation. The complainant argued that the next day of stolen the car, orally intimated to the opposite party and also the theft was published in the newspaper. In Ext.A4 the complainant mentioned that the incident was intimated to the opposite party through post. No contradictory evidence was produced by the opposite party. In Ext.B2 page No:3 conditions.
1. Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurence of any accidental loss or damage 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 inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this Policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this Policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender.
In the present case the complainant intimated the incident to the police and a crime was registered. Also the complainant stated that the incident was intimated to the opposite party through post. In the case of theft where no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is the duty of the complainant to inform the police about the theft immediately, say within 24 hours otherwise valuable time would be lost in tracing the vehicle. Similarly the insurer should also be informed within a day or two so that the insurer can verify as to whether any theft had been taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced. It is not in dispute that the complainant has taken a comprehensive insurance policy and the stolen of the vehicle during the policy period. It was disputed by the insurance company that the incident of stolen the vehicle was not intimated immediately to the opposite parties. According to the opposite parties the complainant had violated the terms of the insurance policy and on that basis the insurance company was within its right to repudiate the claim. The Honourable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that in a case of violation of condition of the policy, the claim ought to be settled on a non-standard basis. The Supreme Court has also laid the guidelines in cases where the claims are to be settled on payment of 75% of the admissible claim on non standard basis. In the instant case we find that there is violation of the policy conditions. In the present case also taking into consideration the gravity of the violation we find that it would be reasonable to direct the opposite parties to pay 75% of the insurance amount on non-standard basis ie, 75% of Rs.2,25,000/- is Rs. 1,68,750/-.
In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties to non payment of the claim amount. In the result the complaint allowed. We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,68,750/- as claim amount with 12% interest from the date of stolen the vehicle to date of order and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of receipt of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of August,2011.
Sd/-
Smt.Preetha G Nair,
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi A K,
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1- Copy of the RC Book of the TATA Indica Saloon car bearing Regn.No: KL-13 P/3557.
Ext.A2- Copy of the FIR from Town North Police Station, Palakkad dated 25/08/2008.
Ext.A3- Copy of the Private Car Package Policy Certificate Cum Policy Shedule issued by the
opposite party.
Ext.A4- Copy of the letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 27/01/2010
along with Postal Receipt and Acknowledgement due.
Ext.A5- Copy of Show cause letter issued by opposite party dated 23/12/2009.
Ext.A6- Copy of the lawyer notice with postal receipt and acknowledgement card issued to the
opposite party.
Ext.A7- Private Car Package Policy Certificate cum Policy Shedule, Policy No.2202372311103332.
Ext.A8- Original of Kerala Police's Final Report dated 20/07/2009.
Exhibits marked on the side of the copposite parties
Ext.B1- Copy of Private car Package Policy Certificate Cum Policy Shedule, Policy
No: 2202372311103332.
Ext.B2- Copy of letter issued by Reliance General Insurance company which includes the terms
and conditions of a insured vehicle during the period of insurance.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
Nil.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties
Nil.
Cost allowed
Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand Only) allowed as cost of proceedings.
