<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 28.07.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 27th SEPTEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER<br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1655/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Ashwin B Naimpally,# 51/2, II Floor, 13th Cross,6th Main, Malleshwaram,Bangalore – 560 003.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Divisional Manager,New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,DO-IV, I Floor, Kukreja House, Kumura Krupa Road,Bangalore – 560 001.Advocate – Sri.B.Anjaneyalu<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to settle the insurance claim for the IDV value and pay the same along with interest as well as pay a damages of Rs.50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant father in law Mr.Sudhakar Gajajan Adhikari is the RC owner of the vehicle KA-04-Z-6610. OP covered the insurance of the said vehicle and collected the necessary premium. Policy was in force for the year 2007-08. Unfortunately the said vehicle was stolen away by the culprits on the night of 27.05.2007 from the compound wall of the complainant wherein it was parked. Complainant being the beneficiary in possession of the said vehicle and enjoyment of the same, filed complaint to the Malleswarma Police on 29.05.2007. After the registration of the complaint concerned Police have submitted FIR but they are unable to detect the culprits and recover the vehicle. Ultimately submitted the ‘C’ final report. Complainant also intimated OP about the theft of the vehicle during the insurance coverage period and produced all the relevant records and documents for consideration of the OP. Unfortunately OP failed to settle the claim as per the IDV value. On the other hand came forward to settle the policy only for Rs.3,80,000/- which is not at all acceptable to the complainant as well as the RC owner of the said vehicle. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to OP went in futile. Thus he felt deficiency in service on the part of OP. For no fault of theirs they were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances they are advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant has no right to file this complaint. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP. The policy in question was covered for a period from 28.09.2006 to 27.09.2007. Vehicle belongs to Sudhakar Gajajan Adhikari he has not made any claim. Of course after taking into consideration the depreciation of the vehicle salvage on spare parts, OP reduced the claim for Rs.3,90,675/- R.C owner has not accepted the same. Later on OP offered to settle the said claim for the IDV value minus Rs.100/-. For that also complainant and the R.C owner are not satisfied. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. OP did process the said claim in time and sent the offer, which is fair. Under such circumstances OP is not liable to pay any compensation, much less the interest as prayed by the complainant. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the father in law of the complainant Mr.Sudhakar Gajajan Adhikari is the R.C owner of the vehicle KA-04-Z-6610 and OP covered the insurance of the said vehicle which is in force from 28.09.2006 to 27.09.2007 and the declared IDV value is Rs.4,85,715/-. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that he was in possession of the said vehicle and using the same for and on behalf of his father in law and it used to be parked at his house. Unfortunately during the absence of the complainant and his family members the said vehicle was stolen away by the culprits on the night of 27.05.2007. Complaint was lodged to the Malleswaram Police, Bangalore on 29.05.2007. Copy of the policy as well as complaint, FIR are produced.<br /> <br /> <br /> 7. It appears the concerned police are unable to trace out the culprit and recover the property, hence submitted the ‘C’ final report. Copy of the said report is also produced. The fact that complainant intimated the OP about the theft of the vehicle on 29.05.2007 is also not at dispute. Of course on the receipt of the claim OP tried to settle it for Rs.3,90,675/- deducting the depreciation in the value of the vehicle salvage on the spare parts which is not acceptable to the complainant and the RC owner. With all that OP failed to settle the said claim as per the IDV value within a reasonable time. Here we find deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 8. Complainant waited up to 28.07.2008 thereafter filed this complaint. It appears when OP filed the version took up the contention that they have settled the claim for the IDV value minus Rs.100/- and sent an intimation to the concerned R.C owner on 11.08.2008 to sign the discharge voucher and return it to them. Copy of the said letter is produced.<br /> <br /> 9. On going through all the documents OP admits its liability, ultimately thought to settled the claim on 11.08.2008. There is an inordinate delay in settling the same. OP got the information about the theft on 29.05.2007 itself. So after lapse of nearly 15 months the claim is settled. During this delay complainant must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss. The hostile attitude of the OP in not settling the claim in time amounts to deficiency in service. Having taken note of all these facts and circumstances we find complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service and the R.C owner of the said vehicle is entitled for the relief to some extent as prayed. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to settle the claim for the IDV value of Rs.4,85,725/- and pay the same together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from 29.05.2007 to till filing of the complaint to the R.C owner of the vehicle Sri.Sudhakar Gajajan Adhikari along with litigation cost of Rs.500/-. Rights of OP to proceed in accordance with the law if the alleged vehicle is seized by the Police concerned in due course of time are kept open.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 27th day of September 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />