Karnataka

Kolar

CC/76/2017

Sri.M.A.Khalid Hussain S/o M.G.Abid Hussain - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

P.N.Srinath

28 Mar 2018

ORDER

Date of Filing: 25/11/2017

Date of Order: 28/03/2018

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

 

Dated: 28^th DAY OF MARCH 2018

PRESENT

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

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

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 76 OF 2017

Sri. M.A. Khalid Hussain,

S/o. M.G. Abid Hussain,

Aged About 56 Years,

R/at: Doddapete,

Malur Town.                                                          ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. P.N. Srinath, Advocate)

 

- 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 insurance company to pay theft claim of Rs.60,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the theft till the date of realization.

 

02.   The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, he is the registered owner of Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-01-HQ-6851 and he purchased the said vehicle in the year 2016 for a sum of Rs.70,000/- and using the said motorcycle for his daily use.  The complainant has insured the said vehicle with the OP vide policy No.1-B5JB673 P400 # 68553031 for the period from 14.12.2016 to 13.12.2017.  The IDV of the vehicle is Rs.60,000/-.  On 18.02.2017 the complainant parked his vehicle at Government bus-stand, Malur and went to Bangalore and at about 09.30 PM he returned back and found that, his vehicle was missing and subsequently came to know that his vehicle was stolen by some miscreants.  The complainant was in search of the said vehicle, but he could not able to trace-out and thereafter he lodged the written complaint before the Malur police station on 19.02.2017.  The police after receiving the complaint assured the complainant that, the registration of the complaint is not necessary and they are going to trace and seize the vehicle in due course.  The complainant visited the police station every often and often and made enquiry and the Malur police have not traced the vehicle.  The complainant requested the police to register his complaint and thereafter the Malur Police forcibly taken another complaint on 01.06.2017 and registered the complaint belatedly in Cr.No.183/2017 punishable Under Section 379 of IPC.  The non-registration of the complaint in time is due to negligence of the Malur Police.  The complainant along with required documents approached the OP for theft claim.  The OP after receiving the documents issued a repudiation letter dated: 05.10.2017 as the complaint was not given in time immediately after occurrence and violated the terms and conditions of the policy.  Thereafter the complainant has approached this Forum seeking the above set-out reliefs.

 

03.   In response to the notice, the OP appeared through its learned counsel and filed its version and contended that, all the material allegations made in the complaint are false and complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts against this OP.  This OP has admitted about the alleged vehicle bearing No. KA 01 HQ 6851 owned by the complainant and so also the validity of its policy.  The OP has contended that, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, it is the mandatory duty of the insured to inform the occurrence of loss immediately.  The OP came to know about the theft of the vehicle only when the summons has been received from this Hon’ble Forum regarding theft of the said vehicle and the complaint is not maintainable.  The OP has repudiated the claim on 05.10.2017 and prays the Forum to dismissal of the complaint.

 

04.   The complainant has filed his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and got marked 07 documents as Exhibit-P.1 to P.7 and so also he has filed Memo dated: 21.03.2018 with final report given by the concerned police station i.e., ‘C’ report.

(i) Attested copy of RC  Exhibit-P.1

(ii) Attested copy of DL Exhibit.P.2

(iii) Attested copy of Sale receipt dt: 05.12.2016 Exhibit-P.3

(iv) Attested copy of insurance policy Exhibit-P.4

(v) FIR Copy Exhibit-P.5

(vi) Copy of complaint Exhibit P.6

(vii) Attested copy of repudiation letter dt: 05.10.2017 Exhibit-P.7.

 

05.   The General Manager of the OP has also filed his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. 

 

06.   The counsel for the complainant has also filed written arguments.  Heard arguments of both sides.

 

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

(1) Whether the repudiation made by the OP is justifiable?

 

(2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint?

 

(3) What order?

 

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

POINT (1):-      In the Negative

POINT (2):-      Partly in the Affirmative

POINT (3):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

09.   POINTS (1) & (2):-   These points are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts.  We have perused the complaint, version of the OP and so also the evidence adduced by both the parties and also the documents produced by the complainant and the written arguments of the complainant.

 

10.   It is an admitted fact that, the complainant is the owner of the thefted vehicle and he insured the said vehicle with the OP and the said policy was in force on the date of the alleged theft and he has produced the said documents as per Exhibit-P.1 and P.4 respectively.  It is the case of the complainant that, on 18.02.2017 he parked his vehicle Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-01-H-Q-6851 at Government Bus-stand, Malur and he went to Bangalore and at about 09.30 PM he returned back and he found that, the said vehicle was missing and thereafter he searched the vehicle and on the next day that is on 19.02.2017 he went to the police station, Malur to lodge the complaint and the Police did not register the case, as they will going to trace and seize the vehicle.  The complainant has also visited the police station on every now and then, but the Malur Police have not traced the vehicle and the complainant requested to register the case as the police have not able to trace the vehicle so also they have not able to trace the written complaint given by him on 19.02.2017 and thereafter the police have forcibly taken another complaint on 01.06.2017 and registered the complaint belatedly in Cr. No.183/2017, Under Section 379 IPC.  The complainant has also produced ‘C’ report before the Forum and on perusal of the above said facts it clearly goes to show that, the complainant has given satisfactory reasons for the delay in lodging the complaint.  The said fact clearly goes to show that, there is no negligence on the part of the complainant in lodging the complaint immediately after the theft of his vehicle.

 

11.   In this regard I relay citation reported by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in CPJ 2017 Part-IV Page 10 (SC).  Wherein his lordship 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.  Further I also relay another citation reported in 2017 CPJ part-IV page 243 (NC) wherein his lordship has held that, the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft.  The principles of the above said citations are attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.

 

12.   The complainant has also visited the OP after registering the case along with documents claiming theft claim.  The OP after receiving the documents issued a repudiation letter on 05.10.2017 as the complainant has not given complaint in time immediately after occurrence of the loss and violated the terms and conditions of the said policy.  The said contentions of the OP has no water in view of the above said judgments as stated above.  The complainant has produced the insurance policy as per Exhibit-P.4 and the said policy was in force on the date of the alleged incident as the said policy is valid from 14.12.2016 to 13.12.2017 and the theft of the alleged vehicle was took place on 18.02.2017.  On perusal of the Exhibit-P.4 i.e., the insurance policy of the alleged vehicle the IDV of the vehicle is shown as Rs.60,000/- but the complainant himself has stated in his complaint Exhibit-P.6 that, the value of his thefted vehicle is Rs.35,000/- as the complainant himself will know about the condition of the alleged vehicle and the average comes to Rs.47,500/- towards loss of the thefted vehicle  and the complainant is entitled for the said amount. 

 

13.   Further on perusal of the repudiation letter of the OP Exhibit-P.7 dated: 06.10.2017 it reveals that the complainant has approached the OP on 03.06.2017 for claiming the theft of his alleged vehicle and the OP has given repudiation letter dated: 06.10.2017 and the OP has failed to settle the claim and the repudiation is not justifiable and it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Op.  Hence the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.8,000/- towards harassment and mental agony. 

 

14.   Hence as discussed above, we answered point (1) in the Negative and Point (2) is in partly affirmative.

 

POINT (3):-

15.   In view of the above discussions on Point (1) & (2) we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint filed by the complaint is allowed.

02.   The OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.47,500/- towards loss of alleged thefted vehicle and compensation of Rs.8,000/- and litigation fee of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order and failing which, the said amount shall carry interest at 9% per annum 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 28^th DAY OF MARCH 2018)

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT