Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/110/2015

R.Madhavan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

M/s.LKS Associates

22 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  11.06.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  15.03.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

THURSDAY THE 15^th  DAY OF MARCH 2018

 

C.C.NO.110/2015

 

 

Mr.R.Madhavan,

S/o. Radhakrishnan,

Old No.30, New No.18,

Corporation Colony 2^nd Street,

T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.The Manager (Grievance),

ICICI Lombard General Insurance,

401 & 402, 4^th Floor, Interface 11,

New Linking Road,

Malaad West,

Mumbai – 400 064.

 

2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance,

Rep. by its Manager.

Nungambakkam Branch,

Nugambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 16.07.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.LKS Associates, S.Lakshmikanthan,

                                                                    Mrs. Subashini Lakshmikanthan

 

Counsel for Opposite Parties                   : Mr.Michael Marie Antony

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the 1^st opposite party to honour the claim and also to pay compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant bought a two-wheeler with Registration No.TN 01 AT3112 on 19.03.2013 through bank loan availed from HDFC bank Ltd.   He had regularly paid EMI’s with the said bank for his vehicle. On 25.09.2013 i.e within 6 months of purchase of his vehicle he lost his above referred vehicle when parked at Sivaji Street, opposite to Nandan Viduthi, T.Nagar, Chennai- 600 017. The complainant searched for his vehicle and on the very same day he approached R1 police station and gave his written complaint to them on 25.09.2013 and the receipt of complaint was later attested by the investigation officer before filing of FIR.

          2. The complainant requested the police officials to issue FIR copy. They had advised the complainant that it is usual happening in case of lost of a vehicle to lodge FIR after two to three days and asked him to come back after 2 days. On 26.09.2013 the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for enquiring about the procedures to be followed for which the 2^nd opposite party asked him whether FIR was filed and informed to get the FIR first and then to contact them. The complainant approached the R1 police station on 27.09.2013 to get the FIR, but to his shock and surprise, neither the FIR nor the non- traceable letter was made ready. On   02.09.2013 the FIR was registered and immediately after receiving the copy of FIR and non-traceable letter from R1 police station, he registered his complaint through TOLL FREE No.18002666 as per instruction of the 2^nd opposite party, and the complaint was filed vide claim.

          3. The respondents stated that the claim of the complainant stands as “No Claim” for the reason stated as follows:

          “Your above mentioned vehicle was stolen on 25^th September and FIR for the same has been lodged on 2^nd October 2013 i.e after 7 days of theft of the vehicle. This is violation of terms of condition of insurance policy issued to you states as – IN CASE OF THEFT OR CRIMINAL ACT WHICH MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF CLAIM UNDER THE POLICY THE INSURED SHOULD BE IMMEDIATE NOTICE TO THE POLICE AND CO-OPERATE WITH THE COMPANY IN SECURING THE CONVICTION THE OFFENDER”. The complainant issued notice to the opposite parties and thereafter filed this complaint to direct the 1^st opposite party to honour the claim and also to pay compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony with cost of the complaint.     

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The complainant’s Honda Motor Cycle registered as TN.01AT 3112 was insured with the opposite parties under two wheeler package policy No.3005/2010696422/0000001756 for the period from 19.11.2012 to 18.11.2013 for the value of Rs.1,18,293/- . The complainant lost his motor cycle on 25.09.2013 as averred in the complaint; nevertheless, the complainant had lodged the FIR with the R1, Mambalam Police Station on 02.10.2013. Thus, there has been a delay of 7 days in filing the FIR. Further, the complainant given the claim intimation to the opposite parties regarding the alleged theft of the vehicle only after a delay of 9 days.

          5. The delay in filing the FIR by the complainant as hampered the process of securing the theft vehicle by the police. Therefore, the act of the complainant constitutes breach of the terms and conditions as stipulated in the policy. Thus, violation of the policy condition by the complainant renders the policy of insurance void. In view of the same, the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

          6. A theft claim was registered by the opposite parties. The opposite parties appointed surveyor and the surveyor after investigation forwarded a letter dated 31.10.2013 to the complainant seeking clarification for the delay in FIR. No reply received from the complaint. The opposite parties once again sent a letter dated 06.11.2013 to the complainant for the same clarification and no response from him. Then the opposite parties sent letter to the complainant that he had lodged the complaint to the police after 7 days and to the insurer after 9 days and thereby violated the terms and condition of the policy and hence they have treated the claim of the complainant as ‘No Claim’. Therefore, the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency to the complainant and pray to dismiss the complaint with costs.

7. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

 

8. POINT NO :1 

          It is an admitted fact that the complainant is the owner of the Honda Two-wheeler vehicle bearing Ex.A4 registration Certificate No.TN 01 AT 3112 and purchased through Ex.A2 invoice and the said vehicle was insured with the opposite parties and they have issued Ex.A3 policy and on 25.09.2013 parked the vehicle at Sivaji Street, opposite to Nadan Viduthi, T.Nagar Chennai -17 and lost the vehicle from that place and after preferring complaint to the police they registered Ex.A6 FIR and the opposite parties appointed surveyor’s and they issued Ex.A7 report and finally the opposite parties have treated the complainant’s claims as “No Claim”.

          9. The opposite parties have rejected the claim that

1.the FIR for the stolen vehicle was lodged after 7 days of the theft of the vehicle and

ii. that the intimation claim to insurer given after 9 days of the date of loss of the vehicle

and therefore the complainant claim treated as no claim.

          10. Admittedly Ex.A6 FIR registered after 7 days of the theft of the vehicle. According to the complainant on the very day of the occurrence, he preferred a complaint to the police station and in support of the same he had also obtained Ex.A5 acknowledgement from the Sub-Inspector of Police, T.Nagar, Chennai – 17. The above fact was not denied by the opposite parties. It is the police who might have registered the complaint with delay of 7 days. For, such a delay committed by police in registering the FIR, the complainant cannot be faulted.  The Ex.A5 clearly proves that the complainant gave complaint to the police on 25.09.2013 itself. Therefore, the complainant given the complaint to the police on the date of occurrence itself and for the fault committed by the police in not registering the case immediately, the complainant cannot be penalized. Further, the police also issued Ex.A9, final report that they were unable to detect the theft. Therefore, in such circumstances, we hold that the opposite parties treated the claim of the complainant as ‘No Claim’ is not accepted.

          11. The opposite parties would contend that the complainant intimated the claim to them after a delay of 9 days, which is in violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant pleaded in his complaint on the day of occurrence he preferred complaint to the police and he also approached the 2^nd opposite party on the next day on 26.09.2013 enquired about the procedures and they informed him that only after getting FIR he could contact them and register through the toll free number and further on 27.09.2013 he went to the police station to get the FIR and the same was not ready and only after registering FIR  on 02.09.2013  and after receiving the copy he had registered complaint with opposite parties through toll free number. From the day of theft of the vehicle the complainant continuously trying to get the FIR and however the police has not registered the FIR and after receiving copy immediately he informed the insurance. Therefore, the complainant explained the delay as above and the same was not denied by the opposite parties in their written version. Hence, the delay in informing the opposite parties explained by him is accepted and hence the opposite parties treated the complainant’s claim as ‘No Claim’ is not sustainable.

          12. In view of above conclusion we hold that there is no delay in preferring complaint to the police and intimation to the insurer and therefore, it is held that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service in treating the complainant claim as ‘No Claim’.

13. POINT NO:2

          Having the opposite parties committed deficiency in service; the complainant is entitled for the claim amount. The complainant made claim No.MOT 03354657 with the opposite parties for the theft of his vehicle. The opposite parties treated the claim of the complainant as ‘No Claim’. This fact proves that the complainant made claim to the opposite parties for the theft of his vehicle. However, he had not mentioned the claim amount in his complaint.  Ex.A3 is the policy schedule issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. In the said policy the opposite parties insured declared value (IDV) of the vehicle mentioned as Rs.1,18,293/-. Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the opposite parties to pay the IDV value of Rs.1,18,293/- towards the claim amount to the complainant would meet end of justice.

          14. Due to denial of the claim the complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted and for the same, the opposite parties can be directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the same, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 jointly or severally are ordered to pay a sum of Rs.1,18,293/- (Rupees one lakh eighteen thousand two hundred and ninety three  only) towards the claim amount to the Complainant and also to pay  a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five  thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses.

 

 

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said claim and compensation amounts shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 15^th day of March 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 19.11.2012		Delivery Note of complainant’s vehicle
Ex.A2 dated 19.11.2012		Invoice of complainant’s vehicle
Ex.A3 dated 19.11.2012		Certificate  cum policy schedule of complainant’s vehicle
Ex.A4 dated 19.03.2013		Certificate of Registration of complainant’s vehicle
Ex.A5 dated 25.09.2014		Acknowledgment of receipt of complaint dated 25.09.2014 from the complainant to the police
Ex.A6 dated 02.10.2013		First Information report filed by the complainant
Ex.A7 dated 31.10.2013		Report of the Surveyors appointed by the opposite parties
Ex.A8 dated 06.11.2013 & 03.12.2013		Letters from the 1st opposite party
Ex.A9 dated 10.01.2014		Non-traceable notice from the police to the complainant
Ex.A10 dated 08.05.2014		No-objection letter and closure letter of the loan amount from the HDFC bank to the complainant
Ex.A11 dated 01.07.2014		Requisition letter from the complainant to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A12 dated 10.02.2015		Legal notice sent by the complainant

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                          Insurance Policy with terms and conditions

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT