DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 09^th day of June, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

             : Smt.Vidya A., Member                       

             : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member         Date of filing: 24/07/2020 

CC/72/2020

Rajeev

    S/o Rajappan, 3/317

    Kunnumpuram, Kalpathy

Palakkad – 678 003                                                  -         Complainant                                            

(By Adv. B.Ravikumar)                       

                                                           V/s

1. The Manager

    Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

    Mangalam Towers

    Opposite Town Bus Stand, T.B.Road

    Palakkad – 678 014

    (By Adv.K.K.Jaidip)

2. The Manager

    HDFC Bank Limited

    Chandranagar Branch

    Palakkad                                                                 -         Opposite parties

    (By Adv. K.A.Kailas)

O R D E R

By Smt. Vidya.A, Member

1.   Pleadings of the complainant in brief

      Complainant purchased an SUZUKI ACCESS 125Z CBS Model Scooter from Able Scoobike LLP, Palakkad for a total purchase consideration of               Rs. 67,604/-  In addition to this, he paid  Rs. 3,000/- for accessories.  The purchase was financed by 2^nd opposite party.

             The complainant is working as a supplier in a hotel and he is staying in staff quarters which is about 300 meters from the hotel.  He used to park his vehicle in front of the staff quarters.  On 24/09/2019, when he reached the quarters, at 11:00 p.m, the vehicle was there; but in the morning he found it missing.  After enquiries he lodged a complaint in the Town North Police Station and the police registered the crime as No.593/2019.  They could not find out the vehicle or the accused after investigation and the police filed final report in the case as ‘Undetected’.  The complainant had financial loss of Rs. 67,604/- being the value of the vehicle, Rs. 5,408/- the tax paid by him, Rs. 50/- as cess and Rs. 6,081/- the insurance premium amount.

              The complainant submitted claim before the 1^st opposite party for getting the insurance amount; but they did not give the claim amount.  When enquired about this, he was informed that his insurance claim is repudiated and they have sent letter to the complainant intimating the same.  But the complainant did not receive the repudiation letter and later on, the 1^st opposite party gave a copy of the letter to him.  At the time of the incident, the vehicle had a valid policy and the 1^st opposite party is bound to give the value of the vehicle, tax, insurance premium and compensation to the complainant.

          There is deficiency in service of the part of the 1^st opposite party in repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant.  The complainant has not violated the policy conditions.

          The complainant was regularly repaying the loan with the 2^nd opposite party.  Once he gets compensation from the 1^st opposite party, he will close the loan.

          So the complainant approached this Commission

1. To direct the 1^st opposite party to pay Rs. 67,604/- being the price of the vehicle, Rs. 5,408/- being the tax paid, cess of Rs. 50/-, value of accessories amounting to Rs. 3,000/-  He claims a total amount of Rs.82,143/- with 18% interest from 24/09/2015 till realisation.
2. To direct the 2^nd opposite party to give extension of time of repayment of the loan.
3. To get Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the mental distress suffered by him together with cost of the litigation.

2.   Complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties.  2^nd opposite party appeared and filed version.  1^st opposite party was set ex-parte as they did not appear.  Later on they filed RA 7/22 seeking to review the order setting them ex-parte.  It was allowed and version was taken on file.              

3.   Main contentions raised by the 1^st opposite party in their version is as follows:

      1^st opposite party admits that they had issued insurance policy to the complainant’s vehicle Suzuki Access scooter KL-9-AQ-3498 and the premium was also collected.  On 19/11/2019, the complainant filed a claim before the opposite party stating the theft of the vehicle.  The opposite party verified the claim and informed the complainant that investigator is appointed and asked him to help the investigator.

          On 27/12/2019, the opposite party informed the complainant that his claim is repudiated due to the reason of ‘delay in intimation’.

              It is seen that the theft of the vehicle has occurred on 24/09/2019, FIR is given by complainant to the police on 08/11/2019 i.e. after 45 days and the insurance company was informed on 19/11/2019 i.e. after 56 days delay. 

              The policy condition stipulates that in case of theft, insured shall inform the company and immediately give notice to the police.  The complainant has violated the policy conditions and his claim was repudiated.

          The default in repayment of loan with 2^nd opposite party is a separate contract and a separate claim will have to be filed for that.

          There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed.  So the complaint has to be dismissed with cost of this opposite party.  

4.   The 2^nd opposite party in their version contended that the complainant had availed two wheeler loan of Rs. 63,960/- bearing loan account No: 62358595 from this opposite party Bank in the year 2018.  As per the terms of the loan agreement, complainant is liable to repay the loan amount with monthly instalments of Rs. 2,493/- with a total duration of 41 months commencing from 04/12/2018 to 04/04/2022.  The complainant is liable to pay interest and overdue charges in the event of default.

          The complainant has never informed this opposite party about the missing of the vehicle and subsequent events.  The complainant neglected to pay the outstanding amount in the loan account despite reminders and several follow-ups from the opposite party.  As on date, an amount of Rs.12,433/- is outstanding in the loan account which the complainant is liable to pay.  The non-payment of insurance claim by the 1^st opposite party is not a ground for non-payment of loan dues.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party.  There is no cause of action and the complainant is not entitled for any relief from the 2^nd opposite party.  The complaint has to be dismissed with their compensatory cost.  

5.   From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for consideration.

1. Whether there was inordinate delay on the part of the complainant in intimating the police and the 1^st opposite party about the theft of the vehicle?
2. Whether the delay was material so as to repudiate the complainant’s claim?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
5. Reliefs if any as cost & compensation.

6.   Complainant filed proof affidavit.  Ext.A1 to A10 marked.  Ext. A2 is objected to on the ground that it is incomplete and it is not accompanied by the schedule.  Complainant was examined as PW1.  Both opposite parties filed proof affidavit.  Ext. B1 is marked from the side of 1^st opposite party and Ext. B2 & B3 marked from the part of 2^nd opposite party.  Ext. B2 is objected on the ground that, it is a photocopy.  As the complainant has no case that it is forged or fabricated, there is no merit in that objection.  Both opposite parties filed notes of argument.  

7.  Points 1 & 2

      Complainant’s grievance is that his vehicle Suzuki Access 125Z DISC CBS model scooter which was parked in front of the staff quarters near Malabar Hospital, Olavakode was found missing on 25/09/2019.  The vehicle was there on 24^th night when he returned from his work.  He enquired about it with his friends, but he could not find out his vehicle.  So he lodged a complaint with the Town North Police Station.  They registered the case and conducted investigation.  Finally the police submitted final report stating ‘undetected’.  He approached the 1^st opposite party claiming the value of the vehicle and other incidental expenses.  But they repudiated the claim of the complainant.            

8.   The 1^st opposite party admitted the existence of a valid policy for the vehicle at the time of the incident and collection of premium amount from the complainant.  Their contention is that there was a delay of 56 days in informing the 1^st opposite party about this incident and FIR is lodged after 45 days.  The theft of the vehicle occurred on 24/09/2019; FIR was lodged on 08/11/2019 and information given to the 1^st opposite party on 19/11/2019.  As per the policy condition, in case of theft of the vehicle, the insured shall immediately give notice to the insurance company.  The complainant failed to act as per the policy condition and his claim was rejected.                  

9.   Complainant produced FIR which is marked as Ext. A3.  From this, it can be seen that the alleged incident occurred on 25/09/2019 and FIR was lodged on 08/11/2019.  The complainant had given notice of the theft to the police nearly after 45 days of the incident.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurshinder Singh Vs Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. 2020 (11) SCC 612 observed that “In case of theft or 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 object behind giving immediate notice to the police appears to be that if the police is immediately informed about the theft or any criminal act, the police machinery can be set in motion and steps for recovery of vehicle could be expedited.  In a case of theft, the insurance company or a surveyor would have a limited role.  It is the police, who acting on the FIR of the insured, will be required to take immediate steps for tracing and recovering the vehicle.  Per contra, the surveyor of the insurance company, at the most, could ascertain the factum regarding the theft of the vehicle”.

10. So from the above dictum, it is clear that even though there is a delay in intimating about the ‘theft of the vehicle’ to the insurance company, it is immaterial.  But it should be informed to the police immediately.  Here the complainant failed to do so.  FIR was lodged nearly after 45 days.  The delay was not properly explained by the complainant.  During cross examination, he deposed that (Deposition page No: 2) “അത് കളവ് പോയത് 2019 September മാസത്തിലാണ്.  24/09/2019 നാണ് Police നെ അറിയിച്ചു.  വണ്ടി കളവു പോയ അന്നുതന്നെയാണ്. അവർ അന്വേഷിക്കാൻ പറഞ്ഞു കൂട്ടുകാർ ആരെങ്കിലും എടുത്തു കൊണ്ടുപോയോയെന്ന്.  ഞാൻ കൂട്ടുകാരുടെ അടുത്തു പോയി അന്വേഷിച്ചു.  വണ്ടി കിട്ടിയില്ല.  Station നില്‍ പോയി അവർ അന്വേഷിച്ചിട്ടേ  FIR ഇടുകയുള്ളു എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞു.  2 മാസം കഴിഞ്ഞാണ് FIR വന്നിരിക്കുന്നതെന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാല്‍ ശരിയാണ്.  വാഹനം കളവുപോയിട്ട് പോലീസ് സ്റ്റേഷനില്‍ നിങ്ങള്‍ ഇടയിൽ പോയിരുന്നു അന്വേഷിക്കുന്നതിന് എന്ന് കാണിക്കുന്നതിന് രേഖകള്‍ ഒന്നും ഹാജറാക്കിയിട്ടില്ലായെന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാല്‍ ഇല്ല.”

               Eventhough the complainant stated that he intimated the police about the theft of the vehicle next day itself, no documentary evidence is adduced in support of this.

11. In a case of theft, the intimation to the police is very crucial;  then only the police can start investigating the matter immediately to enhance the chances of recovery.  Further, the complainant failed to take proper care and precaution to safeguard the vehicle as he deposed that “കളവു പോയ ദിവസം ഞാൻ scooter പൂട്ടിയിട്ടല്ല പോയത്.  റുമിന്‍റെ് മുന്നിലാണ് വണ്ടി വച്ചിരുന്നത്.” 

          So from the discussions, it is clear that delay of 45 days in intimating the police about the theft of the vehicle was material as it defeated the possibility of recovering the vehicle. 

13. Points 3 to 5

      From the conclusion arrived at in points 1 & 2, the delay in lodging the FIR is material and vital in repudiating the claim. 

              Hence the delay in lodging FIR without proper explanation is a sufficient ground for repudiating the claim.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party in repudiating the claim and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed.

      Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed.       

Pronounced in open court on this the 09^th day of June, 2023.

                                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                   Vinay Menon V

                                                                                President                                              

                                                            Sd/-

                  Vidya.A

                                Member   

                                                                                                 Sd/-                                                                                            

                                                                                    Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                               Member

APPENDIX

Documents marked from the side of the complainant:

Ext. A1  : Original R.C Book of KL-09-AQ-3498.

Ext. A2  : Insurance policy Certificate dated 31/10/2018.

Ext. A3  : FIR by Palghat Town North Police Station dated 08/11/2019.

Ext. A4  : Final Report by Palghat Town North Police Station dated

               10/03/2020.

Ext. A5  : Refer notice by Palghat Town North Police Station.

Ext. A6  : Tax Invoice dated 31/10/2018.

Ext. A7  : Tax Licence issued by Motor Vehicles Department.

Ext. A8  : Copy of Claim form submitted to Insurance Company.

Ext. A9  : Letter from Reliance General Insurance dated 27/12/2019.

Ext. A10: Copy of loan account statement.

Documents marked from the side of opposite parties:

Ext. B1: Policy copy

Ext. B2: Copy of the loan application form dated 07/11/2018.

Ext. B3: HDFC Bank Account statement.

Witness examined from the complainant’s side: Nil

Witness examined from the opposite parties side:

PW1: Rajeev – Complainant.

Cost: Nil

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.

Forwarded/By Order,     

                                                                                    Assistant Registrar

Fair copy on:     06/07/2023

Despatched on: