BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S 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

Friday the 21^st  day of September, 2012

C.C.No.152/2011

Between:

B.Veera Reddy, S/o B.Harichandra Reddy,

H.No.1/1993, BHR Nagar,  Yemmaganur - 518 360, Kurnool District.  

                                        …Complainant

                                                    -Vs-      

The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,

D.No.40-353-A,  4^th Floor, Alankar Plaza, Kurnool District-518 001.                  

                                      ...Opposite ParTy

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate for complainant and Sri.P.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

                                               ORDER

(As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member)                                                                C.C. No.152/2011

1.     This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying:-

1.   To direct the opposite party to pay the insured amount of Rs.3,15,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum;

1.   To grant a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and damages for causing mental agony and hardship;

1.   To grant the costs of this complaint;

1.   To grant such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.

2.    The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is the owner of new TATA INDIGO Car bearing No.AP21 M 4959, which was insured with opposite party under policy bearing No.1808792311001804 for Insured Declared Value of Rs.3,15,000/-.  The policy was in force from 03-05-2009 to 02-05-2010.  On 04-05-2009 the vehicle was stolen by unknown persons at Main, 5^th block, Jaya Nagar, Bangalore.  The complainant lodged a complaint before Jaya Nagar P.S. and the same was registered in Crime No.208/2009.  The complainant informed the same to opposite party.  After due investigation, the police filed a report before the Honourable Court stating that the said vehicle was not traced.  The complainant submitted the claim form along with relevant document to opposite party.  The opposite party did not settle the claim. At last the complainant got issued legal notice dated 02-07-2011 to opposite party.  The opposite party neither gave any reply to it, nor settled the claim of the complainant.  Due to the negligent act of opposite party, the complainant suffered mental agony.  There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence the complaint.

3.     Opposite party filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  It is barred by period of limitation.  It is admitted that the complainant was the owner of the Car bearing No.AP21 M 4959 and the same was insured with opposite for a period of one year commencing from 03-05-2009 to 02-05-2010.  The alleged theft was committed on 04-05-2009, but the complainant informed the same to opposite party on 22-01-2010, after lapse of nine months 18 days.  As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant should issue notice to opposite party in writing immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim.  As the complainant violated the conditions of the policy, the opposite party repudiated the claim on 08-09-2010.  The complainant got issued legal notice dated 02-07-2011 with false allegations to get wrong full gain from opposite party. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A6 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite party Ex.B1 is marked and sworn affidavit of opposite party is filed.

5.     Both sides filed written arguments.

6.     Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the complaint is barred by period of limitation?

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party?

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

1. To what relief?

7.      POINT i:-  Admittedly the complainant insured his car with opposite party under Ex.A1=Ex.B1 policy bearing No.1808792311001804.  On the report given by the complainant a case was registered in Crime No.208/2009 by Jaya Nagar P.S. Bangalore.  Admittedly the complainant submitted claim form to opposite party.  According to the opposite party the claim of the complainant was repudiated on 08-09-2010.  It is the case of the opposite party that the complaint is not filed within the period of limitation under section 24 (a) C.P. Act, 1986.  The period of limitation to file a complaint before the District Forum is two years from the date, on which the cause of action has arisen.  In insurance cases, the period of limitation starts from the date on which the claim was repudiated.   The claim was repudiated on 08-09-2010.  The complaint is filed on 16-11-2011.  The complaint is well in time and it is not barred by period of limitation.

8.      POINTS ii and iii:- Admittedly the complainant is the owner of the Car bearing No.AP21 M 4959 and it was insured with opposite party under Ex.A1 = Ex.B1 the said policy was in force from 03-05-2009 to 02-05-2010.  It is the case of the complainant that insured vehicle was stolen by unknown persons at Main, 5^th Block, Jaya Nagar, Bangalore.  The complainant intimated the same to opposite party.  The complainant made a complaint before Jaya Nagar P.S. in Crime No.208/2009.  A copy of F.I.R. is marked as Ex.A2.  After investigation the police filed a final report Ex.A3 before the Honourable Court stating that the said vehicle was not traced. The complainant submitted the claim form along with relevant documents to opposite party.  The opposite party did not settle the claim.  The complainant got issued legal notice Ex.A5 dated 02-07-2011.   After the receipt of the notice also the opposite party did not respond. 

9.     According to the opposite party the theft was committed on 04-05-2009.  The complainant has given intimation to opposite party on 22-01-2010, after lapse of 9 months 18 days in violation of condition No.I of the policy.  As per the condition No.I the complainant should issue notice in writing to insurance company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim.  The opposite party filed policy copy along with terms and conditions of the policy.  It is marked as Ex.B1.  The complainant intimated the alleged theft after abnormal delay.  The opposite party rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant on 08-09-2010.

10.    The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party argued that the complainant was fully aware of conditions of the said policy.  There is a contract between the insurer and insured.  Both parties must bound by the conditions of the policy.  As the complainant committed in violation of condition No.I under the said policy that he has intimated the alleged theft, after a lapse of 9 months 18 days with abnormal delay to opposite party.  So the opposite party is not liable to pay any claim amount under the said policy.  In support of his contention he cited decisions reported in:

1. National Commission New Delhi in

First Appeal No.321/2005 decided on 09-12-2009.

1. National Commission New Delhi in R.P.No.3900/2011 decided on 20-07-2011.

1. National Commission New Delhi Original Petition No.365/2002 dated 13-04-2012.

        In the said decisions it was clearly held that delay in giving notice to insurer about the theft of vehicle would be a violation of condition of the policy and the insurance company is not liable.  In the present case also the complainant violated the condition No.I of the policy.  The complainant not issued notice to opposite party in writing immediately upon the occurrence of theft.

11.    The learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that breach of policy conditions not germane in case of theft of vehicle.  In support of his contention he cited a decision reported in IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC) where in it was held that breach of conditions not germane in case of theft of vehicle in respect of nature of use of vehicle.  In the present case there was a delay in giving intimation about the theft to opposite party.  The facts of above case are different from the said present case on hand. 

12.    It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the complainant was not aware of the conditions of the policy.  The opposite party did not supplied the terms and conditions along with policy.  So the complainant could not be bound by any condition, which were not explained or made aware at the time of entered into contract.  In support of his contention he relied on a decision reported in II (2012) CPJ 349 (NC) Oriental Insurance Company Limited –Vs- Brahmdeo Panjiyara.  The facts of above cited case are not similar to the facts of present case.  In the above cited case the theft was committed by the employee of insured. So the insurance company repudiated the claim under special exceptions, which were not supplied along with policy document.  In the p resent case it is clearly mentioned in Ex.A1=Ex.B1 policy copy that the insured has to know the conditions in their website.  It is the duty of the complainant to know all the conditions of the policy at the time of entering into contract. 

13.    It is further argued by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that when the complainant lodged a complaint, the question of no intimation to the opposite party does not arise.  In support of his contention he relied on a decision reported in III (2008) CPJ 459 Ridhi Gupta –Vs- National Insurance Company Limited.  In the above cited case the theft was committed in transit within radius of fifteen miles from the insured premises.  The Honourable National Commission held that when report was lodged with the police, the insurance company is barred to appoint investigator to investigate in to the fact, the insurance company may appoint surveyor for the purpose of assessing the loss.  In the present case the complainant intimated belately about the theft.  The insurance company had no chance to appoint the surveyor.

14.    The complainant could not place any material on record to prove that he had informed the opposite party about the theft within reasonable time.  Hence we hold that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy and that the opposite party need not pay any amount under the policy to the complainant.  The opposite party rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy.  No deficiency of service is found on the part of opposite party.

15.    In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 21^st day of September, 2012.

Sd/-                                   Sd/-                                   Sd/-        

MALE MEMBER                      PRESIDENT                  LADY MEMBER

                                 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                    Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nill            For the opposite party : Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1                Policy bearing No.1808792311001804.   

Ex.A2               Photo copy of F.I.R. in crime No.208/2009 Jaya Nagar P.S.,

                Bangalore City dated 04-05-2009.

Ex.A3                Photo copy of Final Report dated 04-05-2009.

Ex.A4                Notice to the complainant dated 28-11-2009.

Ex.A5                Office copy of Legal Notice dated 02-07-2011 along with 

                Postal Receipt and Postal Acknowledgement.

Ex.A6                Termination Letter dated 11-08-2010.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:-

Ex.B1                Photo copy of Policy bearing No.1808792311001804.

Sd/-                                   Sd/-                                   Sd/-        

MALE MEMBER                 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               :