BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Thursday the 2nd day of June, 2011
C.C.No.77/2010
Between:
Samudrala Pandurangaiah, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah,
H.No.2-275, Chittluruvari Street, Nandyal.
…Complainant
-Vs-
- The Manager claims, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,
4 A, H.No.3-9, Sreeman Rama Towers, Opp. Kalanikethan, Hanuman Nagar, Dilsukh Nagar, Hyderabad -500 060.
- The Branch Incharge, M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,
D.No.10/85, Alankar Plaza, Kurnool-518 002.
…Opposite Parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri S.V.Krishna Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri A.V.Subramanyam, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 set exparte for upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 77/10
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-
(a) To direct the opposite parties to pay damages of Rs.33,266/- cover under policy;
(b) To award costs of the complaint;
(c) Award Rs.20,000/- for mental agony;
- Award interest from the date of repudiation till the date of realization;
- To grant such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant purchased Bajaj Motor Cycle from Nandi Bajaj Showroom Nandyal on 16-10-2006. The said vehicle was insured with opposite party No.1 under the policy bearing No.OG 07-1801-1802-00042657. The policy was in force from 16-10-2006 to 15-10-2007. It covers loss under theft also. The sum assured under the policy is Rs.33,266/-. On 22-12-2006 at about 10-00 A.M. the complainant parked his Motor Cycle in front of his house and went into his house. At about 11-00 A.M the vehicle was committed theft by unknown persons. The complainant tried to trace out his Motor Cycle but he did not trace it. He preferred the complaint to Nandyal Police Station on 17-01-2007. The Police registered a case Under Section 379 I.P.C. in Crime No.14/2007. The complainant submitted the F.I.R. etc., to the Insurance Company with a covering letter on 17-01-2007 under registered post. Again on 21-09-2007 the complainant submitted all necessary documents to the opposite party. Even after receipt of all the documents the opposite party did not settled the claim. Finally the complainant got issued legal notices to the opposite party on 07-02-2008 and 24-09-2009 demanding to settle the claim. The opposite party on 15-10-2009 gave reply with all false allegations and repudiated the claim. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.2 set exparte. Opposite party No.1 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not a Consumer as defined under section 2 (d) of Consumer Protection Act. It is admitted that the complainant insured his Bajaj Motor Cycle with opposite party No.1. The complainant not submitted relevant documents to opposite party No.1 on 17-01-2007 and on 21-09-2007. Opposite party No.1 came to know about the alleged theft of the vehicle after receipt of notice from the counsel. The complainant gave the complaint very leisurely on 17-01-2007. There is abnormal delay of 25 days in lodging the complainant. The complainant informed opposite party No.1 about the theft of the vehicle only on 21-09-2007 i.e. after 10 months from the date of alleged theft. As per the condition No.1 of the policy notice shall be given in writhing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage…. In case of theft or other Criminal Act which may be the subject of a claim under the policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender. The complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy and he is not entitled to any amount. The complaint is not filed within two years from the date of the alleged theft on 22-12-2006. The complaint is barred by limitation. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1. Bajaj Auto Finance Limited which gave finance to the complainant for the purchase of the vehicle is a necessary party. The financer is not added as a party in the present complaint. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A14 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite partNo.1 Ex.B1 is marked and sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.1 is filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether the complaint is barred by time?
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No.1?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. POINT No.1 :- It is the case of the complainant that he purchased Bajaj Motor Cycle and insured the same with opposite party No.1. The complainant filed Ex.A1 showing the purchase of Motor Cycle from Nandi Bajaj dealer Nandyal. Admittedly the complainant insured the said vehicle with opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 issued Ex.B1 policy in favour of the complainant. The policy was in force from 16-10-2006 to 15-10-2007. The sum assured under the policy is Rs.33,266/-. There is clear mention in the said policy that it covers loss of vehicle by theft. It is the case of the complainant that his vehicle was committed theft by unknown offenders on 22-12-2006 at about 11-00 A.M. According to the complainant he gave report to police about the theft of his vehicle, and that I Town Police Registered a case in Crime No.17/2007. Ex.A7 is the copy of the F.I.R. where in it is mentioned that the vehicle of the complainant was committed theft on 22-12-2006.
8. It is the case of the opposite party No.1 that the complaint is barred by time as it is not filed within two years from the date of the alleged theft of vehicle on 22-12-2006. The present complaint is filed on 23-03-2010 beyond two years from the date of alleged theft of the vehicle on 22-12-2006. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the complainant that he sent all the necessary documents to opposite party No.1 with a request to pay the assured amount and that opposite party No.1 did not pay the assured amount. The complainant in his affidavit evidence clearly stated that the police registered the case on 17-01-2007 and later he sent the claim along with necessary documents to opposite party No.1 on 20-01-2007. As seen from Ex.A4 dated 17-01-2007 and Ex.A6 it is very clear that the complainant sent the documents to opposite party No.1 on 20-01-2007. Ex.A6 is the postal receipt dated 20-01-2007. In Ex.A4 it is clearly mentioned that the F.I.R. etc., were submitted to opposite party No.1 on 20-01-2007. Admittedly opposite party No.1 received Ex.A5 letter dated 21-09-2007. In the said letter the complainant requested opposite party No.1 to settle the claim. In Ex.A5 it is also mentioned that F.I.R. and other documents were submitted to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 gave Ex.A13 reply notice repudiating the claim of the complainant. Ex.A13 is dated 15-10-2009. In case of insurance claim the cause of action starts from the date of repudiation of the claim by the insurance company. The period of limitation for filing the complaint is two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The cause of action in the present case had arisen on 15-10-2009 when opposite party No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant filed the complaint on 23-03-2010 i.e. within two years from the date of repudiation of the claim by the insurance company. The complaint is well in time.
9. POINT No. 2 & 3:- It is the case of the complainant that his insured vehicle was committed theft by unknown offenders on 22-12-2006. Opposite party No.1 disputes the theft of vehicle of the complainant on 22-12-2006. It is for the complainant to show that his vehicle was committed theft on 22-12-2006. The complainant in his sworn affidavit clearly stated that his vehicle was committed theft at 11-00 A.M. on 22-12-2006, that he gave police report in I Town Police Station, Nandyal and police registered a case in Crime No.14/2007. The complainant filed Ex.A7 copy of the F.I.R. It is mentioned in Ex.A7 that on the basis of the report given by the complainant a case in Crime No.14/2007 was registered by police. In F.I.R. it is mentioned that the vehicle of the complainant was committed theft by unknown offenders on 22-12-2006 at 11-00. The complainant filed Ex.A8 final report in Crime No.14/2007. The police referred the case as undetectable. It is not mentioned in the final report that the complainant gave a false report. It is the case of the opposite party No.1 that there was abnormal delay of 25 days in giving report to the police and that the claim made by the complainant is false. Merely because there is delay of 25 days in giving report to the police it cannot be said that the claim of the complainant is false. It is also the case of opposite party that the complainant did not intimate about the theft of his vehicle to opposite party No.1 immediately and that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Ex.B1 is the copy of the policy. Ex.B1 contains the conditions. The first condition in Ex.B1 is that notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon occurrence of any accidental loss or damage. In case of theft or other Criminal Act which may be subject of a claim under the policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the convection of the offenders. There is no mentioned in Ex.A1 that in case of theft of insured vehicle the owner showed give notice in writing to the company immediately. No doubt it is mentioned in condition No.1 that the insured shall give immediate notice to the police about the theft of the insured vehicle. In the present on hand the insured gave report to the police about the theft of the vehicle 25 days later. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the claim of the complainant cannot be rejected by the insurance company on the ground that there was delay in lodging the report with police. In support of his contention he relied on the decision reported in 2008-CPJ-2-483 where in the Honourable National Commission held that “the provisions of delay in informing the Insurance Company or lodging the report with the police are of little significance as these are of directory nature and not of the mandatory nature. What is relevant is whether any such accident or occurrence has taken place or not and whether the insured has played fraud or given wrong information to take un due benefit against the insurance policy”. In this case there is a material on record to show that the insured vehicle of the complainant was committed theft on 22-12-2006. There is also evidence on record to show that after registration of the case by police the complainant on 20-01-2007 sent necessary documents to opposite party No.1 under registered post. The contention of opposite party No.1 that it was not informed about the theft of the vehicle till 21-09-2007 is not correct. Merely because there was delay informing about the theft of the insured vehicle to opposite party No.1 the claim of the complainant cannot be rejected.
10. The rejection of the claim by opposite party No.1 on the ground that there was delay in giving to report to the police about the theft of the vehicle is not justified. The grounds on which opposite party No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant are not sound. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1. The complainant is entitled for insured amount.
11. In result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to pay assured amount of Rs.33,266/- to the complainant, with subsequent interest at 9% from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e., 15-10-2009 till the date of payment along with cost of Rs.500/-. The complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 2nd day of June, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Motor cycle purchase bill of Rs.35,017/- dated 16-10-2006.
Ex.A2 Motor vehicle cover note, dated 23-10-2006.
Ex.A3 Certificate cum policy schedule No.OG-07-1801-1802-00042657.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of Letter dated 17-01-2007.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of letter dated 21-09-2007.
Ex.A6 Postal receipts. (3).
Ex.A7 Photo copy of F.I.R. NO.14/2007 dated 17-01-2007 of I Town
Police Station Nandyal.
Ex.A8 Photo copy of Undetectable certificate issued by the J.M.F.C. Nandyal dated 17-09-2007.
Ex.A9 Office copy of legal notice dated 07-02-2008.
Ex.A10 Speed post receipt dated 07-02-2008.
Ex.A11 Office copy of legal notice dated 24-09-2009.
Ex.A12 Speed post receipt dated 25-09-2009.
Ex.A13 Reply notice dated 15-10-2009.
Ex.A14 Form-14 Certificate of satisfaction dated 24-11-2010.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Certificate cum policy schedule No.OG-07-1801-1802-00042657.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MALEMEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
