Complaint filed on: 22.11.2016
Complaint Disposed on:05.08.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.109/2016
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT/S:
Mr.Abdul Rahman,
S/o Sri Mohiddin P.K.,
R/o No.7, Halemudigeri,
Hand post, Mudigeri,
Chickmagalore District.
(By Sri/Smt. Halekote A.Thejaswi, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT/S:
The Manager,
The National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office, 2nd floor, Yashoram
Chambers, Rathnagiri Road,
PB No.179, Chikmagalur-577101.
(Op By Sri.N.Devendra Kumar, advocate)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against Op alleging deficiency in service in not settling the claim towards theft of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-18/A-5607. Hence, prays for direction against Op to pay the insured declared value of Rs.5,14,800/- along with interest and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant is the registered owner of vehicle Eicher truck 10.90 Std bearing registration No.KA-18/A-5607 and insured with Op vide package policy No.604901/31/13/6300007315, which is valid from 16.02.2014 to 15.02.2015. Such being the case, on 05.11.2014 the vehicle was stolen at 10.00 P.M., where it was parked in front of complainant’s house, immediately after noticing the theft complainant gave a police complaint to Mudigere Police station and Mudigere police have registered a case in their crime No.155/2014 dated 06.11.2014. Thereafter the police have filed a charge-sheet after investigation against accused persons.
The complainant also intimated the Op with respect to theft of the vehicle and claimed for insured declared value on 07.11.2014 with enclosure of FIR, complaint, copy of the policy, RC and other documents to do the needful, but inspite of submitting the claim form and required documents Op had not settled the claim made by complainant towards theft of the vehicle. Even inspite of repeated requests also Op failed to settle the claim. Hence, Op rendered a deficiency in service in not settling the claim of the complainant. Finally, complainant issued a legal notice on 03.11.2016 and called upon the Op to settle the theft claim of the complainant. Even inspite of receipt of legal notice also instead of settling the claim Op had replied untenably on 15.11.2016.
Hence, complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of Op in not settling the claim and prays for direction against the Op to settle the theft claim for an amount of Rs.5,14,800/- with interest along with compensation for deficiency in service as prayed above.
3. After service of notice Op appeared through his counsel and filed version and contended that, they have issued a package policy bearing No.604901/31/13/6300007315 to the complainant towards his vehicle Eicher Truck bearing registration No.KA-18/A-5607, which is valid from 16.02.2014 to 15.02.2015. The complainant has sent a claim letter to this Op along with required documents. The file relating to the complainant was closed in the office of this Op for the following reasons:
As per the rules and regulations of the Insurance Company, the complainant has to produce ‘C’ Report along with letter (Non traceable Report) to the Insurance Company. But the complainant has not produced the said ‘C’ Report to the opponent. Hence, the opponent has requested the complainant to produce ‘C’ Report vide opponent’s letter dt.21.05.2015 and the said letter was received by the complainant on 25.05.2015. But the complainant has not responded to the said letter nor replied the same. Hence, the opponent has issued reminders to the complainant to produce ‘C’ Report, vide reminders dt:11.06.2015, 14.07.2015 and 08.09.2015. At last the complainant has written a letter to the Insurance company seeking time to produce the documents vide his letter dt.05.10.2015. Accordingly time was granted to the complainant to produce ‘C’ Report.
Op further contended that, on 17.12.2015 the complainant has written a letter to Op that his vehicle has been traced, in view of this the question of paying any amount to the complainant by this Op does not arise. Further, complainant has not produced ‘C’ Report has required by Op and in view of his letter dated 17.12.2015 the file relating to the complainant towards claim has been closed as “No Claim”. The said fact also informed to the complainant through their letter dated 16.03.2016 and further this Op also written another letter stating the same fact to the complainant on 30.03.2016 in reply to the letter dated 29.03.2016 of the complainant. Inspite of above facts the complainant has issued a legal notice to this Op, the said legal notice has been replied suitably by this Op.
Op further contended that, a separate investigation had been conducted by this Op with regard to the claim of the complainant, from the said investigation this Op came to know that on the basis of the complaint filed by complainant to the Mudigere police station and a charge-sheet submitted to JMFC Mudigere against the accused Riyazulla Khan and Saddam in crime No.155/2014. The said two accused persons have sold the truck to one Mr.Taj of Kattihalli and said Taj is absconding. Therefore, the Op is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Hence, there is no any deficiency in service on the part of this Op in not settling the claim of the complainant and they are also not liable to pay any compensation as claimed in the complaint. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. Op also filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.21.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is a Deficiency in service on the part of Op?
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Affirmative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
8. On going through the pleadings, affidavits and documents produced by both complainant and Op, we noticed that there is no dispute that Op had issued a package policy to the complainant vehicle bearing registration No.KA-18/A-5607 and complainant is the owner of the said vehicle. It is also admitted by Op that on 05.11.2014 the vehicle was stolen by unknown persons. Subsequently, police have filed a charge-sheet against the accused persons, after filing the charge-sheet complainant had claimed for insured declared value as per the policy. But Op had repudiated the claim for the reasons that complainant had not produced ‘C’ Report in the case and they also repudiated the claim of the complainant for the reason that the vehicle was traced out as per their another investigation. Hence, submits no deficiency on their part.
The Op admits that the charge-sheet filed against the accused persons and also admits that the criminal case against the accused is pending before JMFC, Mudigere. The reason given by Op to produce ‘C’ Report from the complainant side to settle the claim is not acceptable, because when the police have traced out the accused and filed a charge-sheet against them, the question of ‘C’ Report does not arise. Further Op in his affidavit has sworn that they have conducted an additional investigation with respect to the claim of the complainant and they came to know that the vehicle was traced out which was stolen by one Riyazulla Khan and Saddam. The said two accused persons have sold the truck of the complainant to one Mr.Taj of kattihalli, but the said Taj was absconding. Hence, they had shown inability to settle the claim. The said grounds taken by Op for repudiation of the claim is not justifiable, because if the vehicle was traced out and it was sold to one Mr.Taj then they should assist the police to seize the vehicle, but Op have not done any efforts to seize the vehicle by police or themselves, merely investigation will not suffice to repudiate the claim of the complainant. As per the terms and conditions of the policy the Op has to take an indemnity bond from the complainant with respect to the vehicle and has to settle the claim of the complainant, instead of settling the claim Op had repudiated the claim on flimsy grounds. Hence, it is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of Op.
The Op if at all the vehicle was traced out they are at liberty to take possession of the vehicle after settling the claim by obtaining indemnity bond from the complainant. Hence, Op is liable to settle the claim of the complainant towards theft of the vehicle and also liable to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service along with litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. As such for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
- Op is directed to settle the claim of the complainant towards theft of the vehicle along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand Rupees only) for deficiency in service and litigation expenses Rs.1,000/- (One thousand Rupees only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the payable amount shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. till realization.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 5th day of August 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (H.MANJULA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant/S:
Ex.P.1 - Copy of the ‘B’ register extract.
Ex.P.2 - Charge Sheet.
Ex.P.3 - Copy of the policy.
Ex.P.4 - Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.P.5 - Reply to legal notice.
Ex.P.6 - Postal Ack. due.
Documents produced on behalf of the OP/S:
Ex.R.1 - Policy.
Ex.R.2 - Claim Form.
Ex.R.3 - Letter dtd:21.05.2015.
Ex.R.4 - Postal Ack. due.
Ex.R.5 - Letter dtd:11.06.2015.
Ex.R.6 - Postal Ack. due.
Ex.R.7 - 2nd reminder dtd:14.07.2015.
Ex.R.8 - Registered Ack. due.
Ex.R.9 - 3rd & final reminder dtd:08.09.2015.
Ex.R.10 - Letter dtd:05.10.2015.
Ex.R.11 - Postal Ack. due.
Ex.R.12 - Investigation Report by surveyor.
Ex.R.13 - Letter dtd:17.12.2015.
Ex.R.14 - Letter dtd:16.03.2016.
Ex.R.15 - Postal Ack. due.
Ex.R.16 - Letter dtd:29.03.2016.
Ex.R.17 - Letter dtd:13.03.2016.
Ex.R.18 - Postal Ack. due.
Ex.R.19 - Certified copy of FIR.
Ex.R.20 - Police complaint dtd:06.11.2014.
Ex.R.21 - Certified copy of charge-sheet.
Dated:05.08.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
RMA
