Karnataka

Kolar

CC/40/2018

Sri.M.Marappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The IFFO TOKIO General Inssurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.T.V.Ramesh

13 Aug 2018

ORDER

Date of Filing: 03/05/2018

Date of Order: 13/08/2018

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

 

Dated: 13^th DAY OF AUGUST 2018

PRESENT

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

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

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 40 OF 2018

Sri. M. Marappa,

S/o. late Muddappa,

Aged About 73 Years,

R/at: Sampangere Village,

Malur Taluk, Kolar District.                                                  

(Rep. by Sri. T.V. Ramesh, Advocate)                                       ….  COMPLAINANT.

 

- 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.53,269/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum in the ends of justice.

 

02.   The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, the complainant is the father of Late S.M. Madesha and he was the RC owner of Honda Shine motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-08-U-9813.  The said S.N. Madesha was met with an road traffic accident on 22.07.2016 and he was died.  After the death of the said S.N. Madesha the complainant renewed the policy for the period from 29.03.2017 to 28.03.2018.  The complainant declared the IDV of the said vehicle as Rs.53,269/-.  The complainant is an illiterate person, having no legal knowledge of transferring the vehicle from his late son to his name.  The said facts were brought to the notice of the respondent agent at Malur at the time of taking policy.  The complainant was using the said motor-cycle for his daily use after the death of his son.  On 02.12.2017 the complainant came to Malur to take treatment for his ailment and he parked the said vehicle in front of the Government Hospital and at about 05.00 PM he came out of the hospital and found that, the vehicle was missing.  On 05.12.2017 he lodged a complaint before the Malur Police and a case was registered in Cr. No.380/2017.  The complainant intimated the theft of the said vehicle through notice dated: 07.12.2017 to the OP and the same was duly served, but the OP did not pay the IDV nor gave any reply to the said letter.  Hence the complainant has filed this complaint against the OP seeking the above set-out reliefs.

 

03.   The complainant has produced the following documents at the time of filing complaint and on 01.08.2018 the counsel for the complainant filed Memo with copy of ‘C’ report.

(i) Copy of FIR in Cr. No.380/2017

(ii) Copy of complaint

(iii) Original postal receipt 1673

(iv) Original amount receipt

(v) Original insurance policy copy

(vi) Copy of Track consignment

(vii) Letter dated: 07.12.2017 issued by the complainant to OP.

(viii) ‘C’ Report copy (consisting 03 sheets)

 

04.   In response to the notice issued from this Forum, the learned counsel for OP appeared and filed its version and admitted that, the son of the complainant by name S.M. Madesha was the registered owner of the said alleged motor-cycle and the son of the complainant has met with road traffic accident on 22.07.2016 and he was died.  The complainant has renewed the insurance policy on 22.03.2017 and obtained the policy from the OP.  The complainant being the father of the said S.N. Madesha took the policy of the insurance in the name of his deceased son and the same is nullity.  The father of the deceased has taken the policy by suppressing the death of his son and renewed the policy.  The OP has denied that the said fact of death was brought to the knowledge of the OP at the time of taking the said policy.  The complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous and prays to dismiss the complaint.

 

05.   The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief.  One Mr. Anthony Saaju has filed his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief on behalf of OP.

 

06.   Heard arguments on both sides.  The counsel for complainant has also filed their written arguments.

 

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

POINT NO.1:-   Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Op?

 

POINT NO.2:- Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief?

 

POINT NO.3:-   What order?

 

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

POINT NO.1:-  In the Negative

POINT NO.2:-  In the Negative

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 repetition of facts.  We have perused the complaint, version and so also the affidavit evidences submitted by both the parties and the documents produced by the complainant.  The complainant being the father of Late S.M. Madesha has filed this complaint against the OP contending that, his son was the registered owner of Honda Shine Motor-cycle bearing registration No. KA-08-U-9813 and his son was met with an accident on 22.07.2016 and he died and after the death of his son the complainant has renewed the policy with effect from 29.03.2017 to 28.03.2018.  The complainant declared the IDV of the said vehicle as Rs.53,269/-.  On 02.12.2017 the complainant came to Malur to take treatment for his ailment and he parked the said vehicle in front of the Government Hospital and at about 05.00 PM he came out of the hospital and found that, the vehicle was missing.  On 05.12.2017 he lodged a complaint before the Malur Police and a case was registered in Cr. No.380/2017 and to that effect he has produced documents.  On 01.08.2018 the counsel for the complainant has also produced the copy of the ‘C’ report. 

 

10.   On perusal of these facts it clearly discloses that, the complainant has renewed the insurance policy of the said alleged motor cycle for the period from 29.03.2017 to 28.03.2018 though the son of the complainant was dead on 22.07.2016 in motor traffic accident and the insurance policy was taken on the dead person which is nullify and the same contention has been taken up by the OP.  When the complainant has renewed the insurance policy after the death of his son and paid the premium on a dead person which is nullified and the complainant is not entitled to seek any reliefs as prayed by him and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Hence as discussed above we answer point Nos.1 & 2 are in the Negative.

 

11.   POINT NO.3:-  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 dismissed.  No order as to costs.

 

02.   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 13^th DAY OF AUGUST 2018)

 

LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT