Date of filing :- 23/02/2013

Date of Order :- 27/05/2015

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM(COURT)

B A R G A R H.

Consumer Dispute Case No. 10 of 2013.

Altab Hussain, aged about 24 (twenty four) years, S/o Mahtab Hussain, R/o Subash Nagar, Ward No.14, Bargarh Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh. .....                                                                                                                                                                                            ..... ..... Complainant.

- V e r s u s -

The General Manager of Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd, E-8 EPIP, RIICO Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajastan-302022.

.... .... .... Opposite Party.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant:- Sri. D.D. Mishra, Advocate with others Advocates.

For the Opposite Party :- Sri. A.K.Dash, Advocate with others Advocates.

-: P R E S E N T :-

Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.

Mrs Anjali Behera ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.

Dt. 27/05/2015. -: J U D G E M E N T :-

Presented by Miss. Rajlaxmi Pattnayak.

The present complaint is filed against the Opposite Party (In short O.P) alleging deficiency in service regarding non-consideration of the insurance claim of the vehicle of the Complainant.

The factual back ground leading to the filing of the complaint by Complainant is that, for maintenance of livelihood the Complainant who is an unemployed person owned a bus namely “Yasmin Travels” bearing registration No.16A-4267, Engine No. 497TC84EYZ874266, Chassis No. 386121EYZ809190. The Complainant obtained on insurance Policy from Shriram General Insurance Company, E-8, EPLP RIICO, Sitapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan for the period from Dt.12/07/2011 to Dt.11/07/2012 vide Policy No. 10003/31/12/166049. Due to illness, the Complainant entrusted the said bus to one Altaf Hussain @ Kalim, S/o Late Ali Hussain, Bargarh to look after the day to day business affairs of the bus and also to pay the income earned from that bus to the Complainant. When the said Altaf Hussain did not pay the income earned from that bus, to the Complainant, the Complainant visited the parking place of the bus and the said bus was not there, then the Complainant inquired in to the matter and came to know that the said Altaf Hussain to whom the bus was entrusted by the complainant for plying disappeared with the bus without his knowledge and nothing was heard of him or of the bus thereafter. On coming to know all this, the complainant reported the matter before the police on Dt.04/07/2012 but the police refused to received the same. Thereby the Complainant filed a case before the Court of S.D.J.M., Bargarh vide ICC No. 43/2012 against the accused Altaf Hussain U/s-379,403,406 IPC where the S.D.J.M., Bargarh directed the I.I.C.Town, P.S. Bargarh to register the case and to take up the investigation and submit the report. The policy investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet U/s 403/406 IPC against the accused. Thereafter the Complainant lodged a claim with the insurer with necessary documents the insurance company repudiated the said claim vide letter Dt.14/02/2013 on the two following two grounds.

1. Since the Complainant had given the said bus to Altaf Hussain in his own consent and said Altaf Hussain sold it without the knowledge of the Complainant, so it comes with in the purview of breach of trust not in theft.

2. Since the Police holder did not intimate the fact to the police or insurance company soon after the theft, so the policy holder is not entitled to get the insurance amount from the insurance company.

Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed his case with a prayer to direct the Opposite Party to pay to the Complainant the insurance amount of Rs. 3,30,000/-(Rupees three lakh thirty thousand)only for along with interest till realization. Besides compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only towards mental agony and Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only towards litigation expenses.

The Complainant in support of his case has filed the following documents.

1. Copy of insurance policy.

2. Copy of letter sent by Opposite Party to the Complainant on Dt.14/02/2013.

3. Copy of complaint case bearing ICC No. 43/12 along with FIR, charge sheets.

Upon Notice, the Opposite Party put in appearance and filed replly version reseting the allegations averred in the petition of complaint. Except admiting the insurance of policy in favour of the Complainant in respect of the vehicle by te Opposite Party, it is submitted by the Oppoosite Party is that all the other allegations averred in the complaint petition are all false, baseless and liablke to be dismissed on the following grounds :

(1)Firstly the Complaint is not a consumer as he is not coming under the purview of Consumer Protection Act because the vehicle was used for commercial purpose.

(2)Secondly, the Complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy by late intimating the matter to the insurance company.

And

3. Also the insurance policy does not cover the risk of property loss due to criminal breach of trust.

There fore, the Opposite Party prayed before this forum for dismissal of the complaint case as the Opposite Party has neither caused no deficiency of service nor

adopted any unfair trade practice to avoid payment under the policy.

Heard the argument and gone through the records points to be decided:-

Point to the decided:-

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer ?

   Learned counsel for the Opposite Party raised objection on this point that, the

Complainant is not a consumer as the said vehicle was used for commercial purpose. In this context, the Complainant has disclosed that he is a consumer as the vehicle was used by him for maintenance of his livelihood by means of self employment. On this point, we rely on the decision of Hon'ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission reported in 2005(I) C P J 26 NC in case of M/S Horsolia Motors Vrs M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd and other where it has been held that petitioner has to be treated as a consumer qua insurance company providing insurance cover for his vehicle even if it was used for commercial purpose. Even if the vehicle is being used for commercial purpose, the vehicle had been insured against the loss and the insurance cover by itself can not be directly related to the generation of profits and hence the insurance company having accepted to insure the vehicle can not be allowed to repudiate the claim on the ground that, it was being used for commercial purpose. The purpose of insurance is to indemnify the loss of insured. Hence dispute of insurance is different from dispute for commercial purpose. Hence in the present case, the Complainant is a consumer and the contention of Opposite Party in this regard can not be sustained.

2. Whether repudiation of claim due to late intimation of the matter of theft or any criminal act is illegal constituting deficiency in service and whether the Complainant is eligible to get his claimed amount ?

The Opposite Party in his written version has submitted that the alleged claim can not be entertained by him as the reporting of occurrence of theft or criminal act is not immediately after the alleged occurrence which is a violation of the policy condition or In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy, the insured shall give immediately notice to the police and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender. Practically this is the only plea of the Opposite Party and for the said reasons they had not gone for inquiry and investigations in to the case matter through their agencies. Stricts to the rules and regulations itself not bad but strong attachment to them and blind attachment to them certainly kills the efficiency of work. The plea of time barred claim in the instant case by the Opposite Party not acceptable. Such delay of only four to five days in lodging the instant insurance claim by the Complainant needs to be condoned as the Complainant/Policy holder could not go for lodging the insurance claim within time because after the matter came to his knowledge he took different steps to attempt to trace the vehicle but when the said attempt proved futile, the Complainant filed complaint case before S.D.J.M., Bargarh and informed the Opposite Party which in no case be rigidly caught hold up. More so, breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy in case of theft of vehicle or any criminal act on the vehicle is immeterial as per the decisions of higher Courts.

In case of minor policy violation, claim can not be completely rejected as per various decisions of Apex Court.

From the record it appear that, the insurance company admitted the ownership of the bus and its insurance and validity of the period of insurance.

So, in our considered opinion, the instant complaint bears merit and orders passed accordingly.

• O R D E R -

In the result, the complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is hereby directed to pay the insurance amount of Rs. 3,30,000/-(Rupees three lakh thirty thousand)only and simple interest calculated there on along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards mental agony and litigation cost within thirty days from the date of the order failing which the total awarded amount shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till realization of the amount.

The case is allowed and disposed off accordingly.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

                    I agree,                                                  I agree,                                                                I agree,

         (Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)                  ( Smt. Anjali Behera )                                       (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)

                 P r e s i d e n t.                                   M e m b e r.                                                              M e m b e r.