Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/74/2018

S.Silambarasan S/o.V.Sureshbabu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager ICICI Lombard General Insurance co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

A.V.Rakesh

18 Apr 2023

ORDER

 Complaint presented on :07.06.2018              

    Date of disposal             :18.04.2023

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

                PRESENT : THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                          :PRESIDENT

                                      TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,                         : MEMBER-I

                                      THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA., :MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.74/2018

 

DATED TUESDAY THE 18^th  DAY OF APRIL 2023

S.Silambarasan,

S/o.V.Sureshbabu,

Residing at No.414,

Perumal Kovil Street,

Melmanambedu, Vellavedu(Post),

Chennai-600 124.

                                                             …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

1. The Manager,

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

Chotabhi Center No.140, Uthamar,

Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam,

Chennai-600 034.

 

2.Mr.Navith Ahmad,

ICICI Lombard House,

414, Veer Savarkar Marg,

Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple,

Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025.

 

3. ICICI Lombard House,

Rep.by Manager,

414, Veer Savarkar Marg,

Near Siddhi Vinayar Temple,

Prabhadevi,

Mumbai-400 025.                                                               …..Opposite Parties

                                               

Counsel for Complainant                          : M/s.A.V.Rakesh and 2 others.

Counsel for opposite parties                       : M/s.Magesh

 

ORDER

 BY PRESENT : THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,  :PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the opposite parties to pay the insurance claim amount admissible and to pay a sum of Rs.100000/- towards disservice and deficiency of service and to pay a sum of Rs.100000/- towards compensation and to pay a sum of Rs.200000/- towards mental agony and torture caused to the complainant and costs.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant submitted that the complainant owned a two wheeler model No.Bajaj Pulsar 150cc black color bearing Reg No.TN 12 K 0518, the vehicle was insured with the 1^st opposite party vide policy No.3005/2010828456/00/0000001563 with effect from 11.08.2015 to 10.08.2016.  The complainant stated that the said two wheeler was stolen by some unknown person on 11.06.2016 at T.H.Road Melmanambedu. Immediately the complainant made a complaint before the Inspect of police, B7 Vellavedu Police Station about the theft of the vehicle and on the same the complainant informed to the 2^nd opposite party toll free number about the theft of the said vehicle and he told that he will do the needful. The complainant stated that after ten days of theft of the vehicle the said Balaji inspected the complainant’s house and advised him to submit the claim petition along with FIR and other relevant documents. The complainant submitted that he again approached the said police station for registration FIR.  After two months they have registered a case on 02.08.2016 in Crime Number 6836/2016 U/s. 379 of IPC. Further the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party and meet on Mr.Naveen regarding the claim of insurance amount.  However he advised the complainant to get to produce the non traceable certificate from the concerned court. The complainant stated that pursuant to the registration of the above case, the Honble Judicial Magistrate No.II Poonamallee passed on order in RCS No.13/2017 dated 05.05.2017 closed the case as two they said wheeler was not traceable despite sincere efforts. The complainant stated that he made a claim before 1^st opposite party with relevant documents. The opposite parties informed that there is delay in registering the FIR and intimating to the company and hence closed the claim as no claim. There is no fault on complainant. The delay in FIR is only by the police officials and not due to the fault of the complainant. The opposite parties committed deficiency in service and they have caused mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complaint.

2.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES  IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party denies all the allegations and averments made in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted.  The complaint filed by the complainants was false, frivolous and vexatious and is as such liable to be dismissed.  The opposite parties submitted that the complainant strict proof that he owned a two wheeler pulsar black colour, bearing Reg NO. TN 12 K 0518 and the vehicle was insured with the opposite parties covering the period from 11.08.2015 to 10.08.2016. Further denies the allegations that on 11.06.2016 at T.H.Road Melmanambedu the vehicle was stolen unknown persons and that the complainant immediately informed the police authorities and the opposite parties. The opposite parties submitted that immediately on the receipt of the belated claim, they appointed an investigator to ascertain into the genuineness of the claim and there was a delay of about 53 days in intimating the police authorities and three days to the insurer. The opposite parties submitted that the gross negligent act of the complainant is clear from his act of leaving the vehicle abandoned on a public road.  It is denied that the complainant had searched for the vehicle and that he gave a police complaint immediately to the police regarding missing of his vehicle in the said place.  It is submitted that the complainant after a prolonged delay of more than 53 days had filed a complaint to the police authorities.  In any even the complainant ought to have intimated the police authorities and the opposite parties immediately on the occurrence of the incident.  It is submitted that it is admitted by the complainant that he had not contacted the opposite parties immediately as he ought to have done, but after a prolonged delay. Hence the same was not complied with by the complainant. The complainant put to strict proof that he had lodged a complaint with the police authorities immediately in according the FIR as late as 02.08.2016, further the complainant had not intimated the opposite party about the inordinate delay of more than 53 days in registering FIR as per the terms and conditions of the policy the claim was closed due to delay in registering FIR and delay in giving intimation and hence there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service practice on the part opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the

    complaint.  If, so to what extent?

 

The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to A8 are marked on their side and written arguments.  The opposite parties filed written version, proof affidavit, written arguments and Ex.B1 and B7 documents are marked on the opposite party side.

4. POINT NO :1 :-

          The fact that the complainant owned a two wheeler namely bajaj pulsar bearing Reg.No. TN 12 K 0518 which was insured with the 1^st opposite party from 11.08.2015 to 10.08.2016 in policy No.3005/2010828456/00/0000001563 is not in dispute between the parties but according to the complainant is two wheeler was stolen by some unknown person on 11.06.2016 at TH road Melmanambedu and immediately he has given a complainant to the Inspector of Police B7 Vellavedu police station on the same date about the theft of the vehicle and he has also informed the 2^nd opposite party insurance toll free number about the same and one Mr.Balaji the customer care staff of the opposite party responded that he will do the needful and he advised the complainant after ten days of the incident to submit a claim petition with FIR and other documents and as per the advise of the police he searched for the vehicle in and around the place of occurrence but the vehicle could not be traced and hence after two months only the police registered FIR in Crime No.686/2016 on 02.08.2016 U/s. 379 IPC and thereafter the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party regarding the insurance amount and he was advised to get non traceable certificate from concerned court and as per the order of the Judicial Magistrate No.II Poonamalle the case was closed as not traceable and RCS Order was passed on 05.05.2017 in RCS NO.13/2017 and thereafter he has submitted to the 1^st opposite party to the relevant document and finally the 1^st opposite party orally informed the complainant that the insurance amount will not be paid to him and rejected the claim by alleging delay in registering FIR and intimating to the insurance company and according to the complainant he has immediately lodged police complaint and the delay in registering the FIR is only due to the fault committed by the police officials and therefore alleged negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and claimed insurance amount for the vehicle and as well as compensation.

          5. But on the other hand the opposite parties 1 to 3 contended that the complainant negligently left the vehicle abandoning on a public road and further contended that as per the terms and conditions of the policy immediate notice in writing shall be given to the company regarding loss or damage to the vehicle and in case of theft the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the offender but though the incident occurred on 11.06.2016 at 02.00 pm the FIR was registered as per Ex.A4 only on 02.08.2016 after a delay of 53 days and further intimation about the theft was given to the company after three days and thereby the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy and inspite of several letter the complainant failed to provide the necessary documents including FIR in time to process the claim and since the insurance is a contract of Uberrimae Fidei both the parties bound by the terms of the policy and therefore contended that the claim was rightly repudiated for the delay in registering FIR which prevented the opposite party from immediately ascertaining the nature of theft and taking necessary steps to cease the missing vehicle and therefore denied deficiency in service on their part.

          6. Ex.A1 and A2 are RC book and insurance policy of the stolen vehicle which was standing in the name of the complainant, it is found from Ex.A3 though the complaint is dated 11.06.2016 the endorsement by the police is only on 02.08.2016 and FIR was lodged as per Ex.A4 on 02.08.2016 after a delay of 53 days from the date of occurrence in the column shown for the reasons for the delay nothing is stated even as per the FIR version the complainant appeared before police only on 02.08.2016 at 08.00 am and given the complaint thereby intimating the theft.  No valid reasons is stated by the complaint by the complainant for the delay in registering the FIR.  Though it is alleged by the complainant that he has given complaint to the police and given intimation to the insurance company on the same date in the toll free number of the company there is no proof of the same.  It is found from Ex.A5 that JM II court Poonamalle has passed a RCS order that the vehicle is not traceable on 05.05.2017.  It is found from Ex.B3 to B5 that the opposite parties sent a letter to the complainant to submit FIR and other documents regarding the theft of the vehicle to process the claim which was not submitted by the complainant in time and hence it is found that under Ex.B7 on 14.01.2017 the claim was closed as no claim for breach of policy condition for giving notice to the company belatedly.  As per Ex.B2 the terms and conditions of the policy notice shall be given immediately to the company as well as to the police regarding loss or damage or theft of the vehicle and it is found that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy by providing intimation to the company after three days and by registration of FIR after 53 days from the date of occurrence and if the complainant has immediately intimated regarding theft to the police as well as the insurance company immediate steps would have been taken to appoint investigator by the company to find out the actual place of theft and further to trace out the vehicle and apprehend the offender immediately by the police which could not be processed by the opposite parties as well as police due to delay in intimation and registration of FIR.  The complainant is not entitled to allege deficiency in service by violating the terms and conditions of the policy.

          7. The complainant counsel relied upon a decision reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 154  Jaina Construction company Vs The Oriental Insurance company and anr. and contended that the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim merely on the ground of delay in intimating to the insurance company when the FIR was lodged immediately.  But in the present complaint the FIR was lodged only after 53 days and hence the same is not applicable to the facts of this complaint.  The complainant further relied upon a decision reported in Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1926/2011 Ravi Vs. Badrinarayn & ors dated 18.02.2011 and contended that delay in registering FIR cannot be a ground to deny justice to the victim.  That case related to an accident claim where an eight year old boy met with accident and the claim for compensation was denied by alleging delay in registration of FIR.  But this complaint relates to theft of a vehicle and intimation regarding the same though was given to the police immediately there is no proof for the same and FIR was registered after 53 days and hence the above said decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. The complainant failed to prove that he has given a complaint immediately to the police by filing atleast CSR receipt for the same.  There is no proof to show that the police wantonly delayed the registration of FIR as alleged in the complaint.  Hence it is found that there is no negligence or service on the part of the opposite parties in refusing to pay the insurance amount for the vehicle. Point no.1 is answered accordingly.

8. POINT NO :2 :-

          Based on finding given to Point No.1 there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3 and hence the complainant is not entitled for the insurance amount for the stolen vehicle and compensation  claimed for deficiency in service and  compensation for mental agony as claimed in the complaint. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

               In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 18^th day of  April 2023.

 

 

MEMBER – I               MEMBER – II                                   PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1		R.C.Book of vehicle bearing No. TN 12 K 0518.
Ex.A2		1st opposite party’s insurance policy bearing No.3005/2010828456/00/0000001563 with effect from 11.08.2015 to 10.08.2016.
Ex.A3	11.06.2016	Complaint before B-7 Vellavedu Police Station.
Ex.A4	02.08.2016	First Information Report.
Ex.A5	05.05.2017	R.C.S. order passed by Hon’ble JM-II at Poonamallee.
Ex.A6	27.07.2017	Legal notice issued by the complainant’s counsel to the opposite parties.
Ex.A7	28.07.2017	Postal receipts-3 Nos.
Ex.A8		Postal acknowledgement card of the opposite parties 1 to 3.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

Ex.B1		Policy of insurance.
Ex.B2		Terms and conditions of the policy.
Ex.B3	29.06.2016	Letter sent by on behalf of opposite parties to the complainant.
Ex.B4	11.07.2016	Letter sent by on behalf of opposite parties to the complainant.
Ex.B5	29.06.2016	Letter sent by opposite parties to the public information officer/Inspector of police.
Ex.B6	06.09.2016	Letter sent by opposite parties to the complainant.
Ex.B7	14.01.2017	Letter sent by opposite parties to the complainant.

 

MEMBER  I               MEMBER  II                                   PRESIDENT