Karnataka

Kolar

CC/13/2018

Sri.N.M.Mahesh Babu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.N.Srinath

30 Jun 2018

ORDER

Date of Filing: 24/02/2018

Date of Order: 30/06/2018

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 30^th DAY OF JUNE 2018

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 13 OF 2018

Sri. N.M. Mahesh Babu,

S/o. Muniyappa,

Aged About 33 Years,

R/at: No.97, Nagondahalli Village,

Kudiyanur Post, Malur Taluk,

Kolar District.                                                                ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. T.V. Ramesh & P.N. Srinath, Advocates)

 

- V/s –

The IFFCO-TOKIO

General Insurance

Company Limited,

Sri Shanthi Towers,

5^th Floor, No.141, 3^rd Main,

East of NGEF Layout,

Kasturi Nagar, Bangalore-43

(Rep. by Sri. B. Kumar, Advocate)                                 …. OPPOSITE PARTY.

 

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PRESIDENT,

01.   The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the OP to pay the theft claim amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of theft till realization of the amount in the interest of justice and equity.

 

02.   The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, he is the registered owner of the Honda CB Shine motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-08-V-0242 and he purchased the said vehicle in the year 2016 for Rs.79,000/-.  The complainant has insured the said vehicle with the OP for the period between 26.05.2017 to 25.05.2018.  The IDV value of the vehicle is Rs.50,000/-.  The complainant was using the said motorcycle for his daily use.

 

(a)    On 10.06.2017 the complainant parked his vehicle at Government Bus-stand, Malur at about 06.30 PM by putting the hand-lock and went to Kolar and he returned at about 09.30 PM and found that, his vehicle was missing and came to know that, the said vehicle was stollen by some miscreants.  The complainant searched the vehicle but he could not able to find it and he lodged complaint before the Malur Police Station on 11.06.2017.  The said police after receiving the complaint assured that, they are going to trace the vehicle and registering of the complaint is not necessary.  The complainant visited the police-station now and then and made enquiry.  The said police did not trace the vehicle and the complainant requested the police to register his complaint and the Malur police had registered his complaint on 27.07.2017.  Thereafter the complainant approached the OP along with documents for theft claim on 11.08.2017.  The OP issued repudiation letter dated: 05.10.2017.  Thereafter the complainant has approached this Forum.

 

03.   The OP has appeared through his counsel and filed its version.  The OP has admitted about the alleged motorcycle owned by the complainant and the same is insured with the OP for the period from 26.05.2017 to 25.05.2018.  The OP has specifically contended that, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy it is the mandatory duty of the insured to immediately inform the occurrence of loss, the said vehicle was thefted on 10.06.2017 and the complainant has intimated the theft of his vehicle to the police on 27.07.2017 and later on to the OP on 11.08.2017 and there is an inordinate delay about giving information to the OP and the said complaint is not maintainable.  The claim of the complainant is not payable by this OP and praying this forum to dismiss the complaint in the ends of justice and equity. 

 

04.   On 30.05.2018 the counsel appearing for the complainant has filed affidavit of the complainant by way of examination-in-chief and on 27.06.2018 the counsel appearing for OP has filed affidavit of OP by way of examination-in-chief. 

 

05.   To substantiate the contention the complainant he has submitted following 06 documents:-

(i) Copy of complaint –Ex.CP.1

(ii) Copy of the FIR-Ex.CP.2

(iii) Original Repudiation letter dated: 06.10.2017-Ex.CP.3

(iv) Original Insurance Bond dated: 26.05.2017-Ex.CP.4

(v) Copy of R.C.-Ex.CP.5

(vi) Certified Copy of ‘C’ Report-Ex.CP.6

 

06.   We have heard the oral arguments advanced by both the counsels appearing for both parties.

 

07.   Now the points that do arise for our consideration are that:-

POINT NO.1:-   Whether the repudiation made by the OP is justifiable?

POINT NO.2:-   Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed by him?

 

POINT NO.3:-    What order?

 

08.   Our findings on the above points are that:-

POINT NO.1:-  In the Negative

POINT NO.2:-  Partly affirmative

POINT NO.3:-   As per the final order

                                        for the following:-

REASONS

09.   POINT NOS.1 & 2:-  These points are taken up together for discussion to avoid the repetition of facts.  We have perused the complaint, version of the OP and so also evidence adduced by both parties and the documents produced by them.  It is an admitted fact that, the complainant is the owner of the alleged thefted vehicle bearing registration No. KA-08-V-0242 and the same was insured with the OP for the period from 26.05.2017 to 25.05.2018.  The alleged theft of the vehicle was on 10.06.2017.  The complainant has produced the copy of the registration certificate as Exhibit-CP.5 and so also copy of the insurance policy certificate as Exhibit-CP.4 and the said policy was in-force on the date of the alleged theft. 

 

10.   On 10.06.2017 the complainant has parked his alleged motor cycle at Government Bus-stand, Malur at 06.30 PM after putting the hand-lock to the said vehicle and he went to Kolar and he returned to Malur at about 09.30 PM and he found that, his said vehicle was missing and he searched the said vehicle and thereafter he went to police station to lodge complaint on 11.06.2017, but the police after receiving the complaint told that, they will search the vehicle and registering complaint is not necessary.  The complainant used to visit the police station after lodging the complaint and the police unable to trace the vehicle and the complainant asked the police to register a complaint and the police has registered the complaint vide crime No. 0265/2017 on 27.07.2017 as per Exhibit-CP.1 and to that effect the complainant has not adduced any cogent evidence for delay in lodging the complaint and Exhibit-CP.1 the complaint does not revealed the date i.e., 11.06.2017 for visiting the Malur Police Station. 

 

11.   The complainant has produced FIR and so also the Final report as per Exhibit-CP.2 and CP.6 respectively.  The complainant has intimated the theft of his vehicle to the OP only on 11.08.2017 though the theft of alleged vehicle was on 10.06.2017 and the complaint was registered on 27.07.2017 and there is a delay in intimating the theft of the vehicle to the OP.  The complainant has given the reasons for delay as the police did not register the complaint at the earliest. The complainant has produced repudiation letter dated: 06.10.2017 as per Exhibit-CP.3, wherein the reason for repudiation is violation of condition No.1 and for the delay in repudiating the claim of complainant the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment and made out deficiency of service of the OP.

 

12.   As discussed above for the delay we relay citation reported by the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2017 CPJ part-11 volume-4 page 243 (NC) wherein his lordship has held that, the insurance company ought to have settle the claim on non-standard basis when the insurer has obtained insurance company policy for the loss occurred to the insurer and the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft.  In that case the complainant is entitled for 75% of the IDV value of the vehicle in case of theft of the vehicle and the delay in that case is about 05 months we relay another citation reported in CPJ 2017 Part-11, volume-4, Page 10, wherein their lordship of Apex Court has held that, if reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay and it will not be fair and reasonable to reject the genuine claims and so also we relay another citation reported in CPJ 2018 Part-1, Volume-1, Page 169 (NC), wherein in that case their lordship have referred Hon’ble Apex Court ruling reported in 2010 CPJ Part-2 Page-9 (SC) their lordship of Apex Court, held that, in case of violation of any condition of the policy the claim of the complainant may be settled on non-standard basis of 75% of the loss assessed by the surveyor.  The principals of the above said citations are attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.

 

13.   On perusal of the insurance policy i.e., Exhibit-CP.4 the IDV value of the alleged thefted vehicle of the complainant is of Rs.50,000/- and in the complaint the complainant has stated that, the value of the thefted vehicle is only Rs.35,000/-, the complainant himself will know about the condition of the alleged vehicle.  Such being the case, in the ends of justice by applying the non-standard basis the complainant is entitled for 75% of the IDV amount.  Hence the complainant is entitled for Rs.37,500/-.  As the OP has not repudiated the claim of the complainant at the earliest and harassed the complainant and the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation costs.  Accordingly we answered Point No.1 is in the Negative and Point No.2 is in partly affirmative.

 

POINT NO.3:-

14.   In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2 and the discussions made thereon, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed-in-part.

02.   The OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.37,500/- towards loss of alleged thefted vehicle and compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation fee of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order and failing which, the said amount will carry interest at 8% per annum from the date of pronouncement of this order till the date of realization of the said amount.

03.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 30^th DAY OF JUNE 2018)

 

LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT