Date of filing: 06.05.2014.
Date of disposal: 14.10.2014.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., President (FAC)
Sri S. Sreeram, B.Com., B.A., B.L., Member
Tuesday, the 14th day of October, 2014
C.C.No.110 of 2014
Between:
Sishtla Rama Lakshmi, W/o Subrahmanyam Sarma, Hindu, H.No.20-6-12, Ramalingeswarapeta, Vijayawada – 520 003.
…..Complainant.
And
1. M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., Ltd., Authorized Signatory Mumbai, Ground and 4th Floor, Interface, 11, Office Number 401 and 402 New Linking Road, Malad (West), Mumbai – 400 064.
2. M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., Ltd., Rep: by Regional Manager, D.No.6-3-352/1, Osman Plaza Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Panjagutta City,Hyderabad – 500 034.
3. M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., Ltd., Rep: by Branch Manager, 20-6, 1st Lane, Ramalingeswarampeta, Ward No.22, Vijayawada.
.. … Opposite parties.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 30.9.2014, in the presence of Sri K. Chiranjeevi and Sri P. Mani Prasad, advocate for complainant; Sri D. Ravi Kiran, advocate for opposite parties; and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S. Sreeram)
This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties 1 to 3 directing them to pay Rs.45,402/- to the complainant together with interest at 24% p.a., from the date of theft till the realization, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages for mental agony, for costs and other reliefs.
The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
1. That the 1st opposite party is dealing in insurance business and the 2nd opposite party is regional office of 1st opposite party and the 3rd opposite party is the branch office. That the complainant is the registered owner of the Hero Honda Passion Pro motor cycle bearing No. AP 16BE 2057 and the same is insured with the opposite party vide policy bearing No.3005/70079623/00/000 and the period of insurance is from 08-03-2012 to 07-03-2013. While so, on 16-11-2012 the above said vehicle was committed theft and the husband of complainant made searches and finally approached the Satyanarayanpuram Police station and lodged report who registered case in Cr.No.33/2013 under Sec.379 of IPC besides informing to opposite party. The 2nd opposite party sent a letter to complainant and sent a surveyor and the complainant submitted all the relevant documents to the Surveyor. On 20-2-2013 the 2nd opposite party sent a letter acknowledging the receipt of documents and the complainant submitted claim form. But so far the opposite parties not settled the claim and on 14-3-2013 the opposite parties sent a letter repudiating the claim on flimsy grounds and as such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties 1 to 3. The 3rd opposite party filed version, which was adopted by opposite parties 1 and 2. The 3rd opposite party through version denied the material allegations of the complaint and submitted that they have received the claim intimation on 27-11-2012 regarding alleged loss of vehicle on 16-11-2012 and alter also received the FIR copy, which reveals that there is a delay of 56 days in lodging FIR. It is further contended that the opposite parties sent a letter dt.20-2-2013 to the complainant with a request to furnish information and documents in regard to delay of FIR, for which there is no reply from complainant. It is further contended that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and that the complainant is not maintainable against the opposite party and finally prays to dismiss the complaint.
3. The complainant filed her chief affidavit reiterating the material averments of the complaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A4 on her behalf. The Legal Manager of 3rd opposite party filed chief affidavit and got marked Ex.B1 to B4 on its behalf.
4. Heard both sides and perused the record.
5. Now the points that stood for consideration are
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3 in settling the claim of complainant?
- If so, to what relief.
Point No.1
6. The undisputed facts in this case are that the complainant is the registered owner of subject theft vehicle bearing No. AP 16 BE 2057 and the same is insured with the opposite party vide policy No.3005/70079623/00/000 and the same is in force from 08.03.2012 to 07.03.2013. The complainant has not filed the certificate of registration regarding proof of ownership. But as the opposite parties not denying the said fact, it has no bearing. Ex.A1/Ex.B1 policy schedule discloses that the vehicle was insured with the opposite party. The opposite party is also not disputing the said fact.
7. The main grievance of the complainant is that on 16-11-2012 after noon at 3.30p.m the husband of complainant parked the motor cycle in front of his house and after half an hour, he returned back and found that the said vehicle was committed theft and he informed the same to the opposite parties immediately and lodged report with Satyanarayanapuram Police Station and that the opposite parties acknowledged the claim, but so far not settled the claim on the ground that the complainant has violated the conditions of the policy as there is a delay of 56 days in lodging compliant with police and 11 days in informing to insurance company.
8. Admittedly the theft of vehicle had taken place on 16-11-2012 at 3.30 p.m and the FIR was registered on 11-1-2013 by Satyanarayanapuram police station. Ex.B2 FIR in Cr.No.33/2013 of Satyanarayanapuram police station and the report annexed to it discloses that the husband of the complainant parked the vehicle on 16-11-2012 at 3.30p.m in front of his house and after half an hour he returned back and found missing of same and he searched for the same till 11-1-2013 and gave report to police. In the col.No.8 of Ex.B2 FIR also reveals that ‘reason for delay is for searching’. It is not the contention of complainant that he immediately approached the police after theft and gave report, but they refused to register the case. Further the complainant also not submitted any GD entry regarding information to police. As such, it is clear that there is a delay of nearly 56 days in lodging FIR as contended by the opposite parties. Further it is the contention of opposite parties that there is a delay of nearly 11 days in informing to opposite parties also. In this regard, the contention of complainant is that she informed to the opposite parties about theft of vehicle immediately. Except the oral assertions, the complainant not filed any document to show that she informed to the opposite parties immediately after theft. But the opposite parties through Ex.B4 claim intimation sheet proved that the complainant informed to them only on 27-11-2012. The condition No.1 of Ex.A1/Ex.B1 policy mandates that
“Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require ………………….. and in case of theft or other act, which may be subject of a claim under this policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company”
In the case on hand, the complainant has given information to the opposite parties about theft of vehicle on 27-11-2012, whereas the theft occurred on 16-11-2012. The complainant also failed to inform the same to police immediately after occurrence of theft and as such there is a delay of 56 days in lodging FIR. The complainant or her husband being prudent men ought to have give report to police on 16-11-2012. All the above facts disclose that the complainant has not properly explained the delay in giving report to police and to insurance company and as such she has violated the conditions of the policy.
9. The Hon’ble National Commission in the decision reported in 2014 CPR 427 NC Between : Ramesh Chandra Vs. ICICI Lombord General Insruance Company Ltd., where under the Hon’ble National Commission not interfered with the order of Hon’ble State Commission which upheld the order of District Forum who allowed the complaint and granted compensation on non-standard basis. It is further held that delay of 11 days in reporting the theft to authorities obviously had prevented the insurance company as also the police to start timely investigation with a view to locate and recover the vehicle and also held that the insured had failed to take proper care to protect the interest of insurance company and justified the repudiating of claim. The Hon’ble National Commission in a decision reported in 2014(1) CPR 473 NC held that
“Immediate intimation to the police and filing of FIR are of paraamunt importance in theft cases and any delay in this respect will have serious adverse impact on the interest of insurance company”
Now coming to the case of hand, there is an abnormal delay of 56 days in lodging FIR and 11 days in intimation to insurance company and the complainant has not explained the said delay satisfactorily. As such relying on the decisions mentioned supra, we are of the opinion that the delay of 56 days in lodging FIR with police had prevented the police to start timely investigation with a view to locate and recover the vehicle and that the said delay will have serious adverse impact on the interest of company. As such the repudiation of claim by opposite party under Ex.A4/Ex.B2 is justifiable one and we found no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
Point No.2:
10 In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs.
Typewritten by Steno N. Hazarathaiah, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 14th day of October, 2014.
PRESIDENT (FAC) MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: -None- For the opposite party: -None-
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 Photocopy of two wheeler certificate cum policy schedule.
Ex.A2 Photocopy of FIR.
Ex.A3 20.2.2013 Original copy of letter issued by OP to complainant.
Ex.A4 14.3.2013 Photocopy of letter issued by OP to complainant.
On behalf of the opposite parties:
Ex.B1 Photocopy of two wheeler certificate cum policy schedule.
Ex.B2 14.3.2013 Photocopy of letter issued by OP to complainant.
Ex.B3 20.2.2013 Photocopy of letter issued by OP to complainant.
Ex.B4 Photocopy of claim intimation sheet.
PRESIDENT (FAC).
