IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 30th day of November, 2017
Filed on 23.01.2017
Present
1.Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.22/2017
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Smt. Suja Thomas 1. The Manager
W/o Late John Mathew Shymas Auto Sales
Puthenparambil Veedu Thattarambalam
Ponakam Muri (Adv.K.N.V. Panicker.)
Ponnadu.P.O 2. The Manager
Mavelikara Reliance General Insurance
1st Floor, Vajram Tower
Residency Road Kollam
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
Complainant is the wife of late John Mathew, complainant’s husband purchased a scooter from the 1st opposite party on 22/5/2015 for Rs. 65,068/- By the direction of the 1st opposite party the complainant had taken a policy from the 2nd opposite party and it renewed up to 21/5/17. On 30/7/2016 before 10.P.M the vehicle was stolen from the house of the complainant. Complainant made complaint on 31/7/2016 in the police station Mavelikara. Since 31/7/2016 was Sunday the complainant informed the matter to the 1st opposite party on 1/8/2016 and as per the direction of the 1st opposite party they informed 2nd opposite party over telephone. There after 2nd opposite party sent its representative from office of the 2nd opposite party and he demanded the documents related to the vehicle and the complainant gave those documents to him. But the 2nd opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that an intimation of the theft was given to the insurer not within the time. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complaint is filed.
2. Version of the 1st opposite party is as follows:-
It is true that complainant’s husband had purchased a scooter from the 1st opposite party. 1st opposite party has no responsibility in satisfying the claim of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party.
3. Version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows:-
The 2nd opposite party issued a policy to the Honda Motorcycle on John Mathew for the period from 22/5/2015 to 21/5/2016. The complainant intimated the lost by theft on 31.7.2016. The complainant was asked to submit the entire records and police report. On a perusal of the police records it was found that the FIR was lodged only on 24.8.16. As per the policy condition No.1 Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately on the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in case of theft the insured shall give immediate notice to the police. In this case the intimation was given to the company after 13 days that is on 13.8.16 and complaint was given to police only after 25 days that is on 24.8.16 hence it is violation of condition No.1 of policy and this opposite party is not liable to pay any amount.
The condition No.1 is follows.
“Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and /or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecuetion, inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of the theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co- operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender” Hence company repudiated claim on 24/9/2016 by sending a letter to the insured. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief prayed in the complainant.
4. Complainant was examined as PW1 the documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A8. the opposite party produced 3 documents and which marked as Ext.B1 to Ext.B3.
5.The points for consideration are:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
6. It is an admitted fact that complainant’s husband purchased a scooter from the 1st opposite party. The vehicle was insured with the 2nd opposite party. Ext.A4 the insurance policy certificate of the vehicle shows that the vehicle has valid insurance coverage from 22/5/16 to 21/5/17. According to the complainant on 30/7/16 at 10 P.M the scooter was stolen from the shed in the house of the complainant and on 31/7/16 itself they informed it to the police Station, Mavelikara. Since 31/7/16 was a Sunday they informed the theft to the 2nd opposite party on 1/8/16. In the version filed by the 2nd opposite party they stated that complainant failed to inform the theft to the 2nd opposite party and also to the police station within the stipulated time. Complainant produced one witness to prove that they made complaint to the police station on 31/7/2016 itself. While cross examing said witness (PW2), he categorically stated that since the complainant’s husband was not well, on 31/7/16, he accompanied the complainant to the police station for giving the complaint regarding the theft. According to the complainant since 31/7/16 was Sunday they informed the theft to the 2nd opposite party on the next day and within 10 days a representative from the 2nd opposite party came for the enquiry and she handed over the documents required by him. She further stated that as per the letter dated 16/8/16 issued by the 2nd opposite party, the complainant gave the documents demanded by them also. The letter dated 16/8/16 produced by both parties and it marked as Ext.A7. Ext.A7 shows that 2nd opposite party had got the claim intimation on 13/8/16 regarding the theft of vehicle of the complainant. By the said letter the complainant was asked to submit the claim form to the investigator. The claim form also produced which marked as Ext.B3. Ext.B3 was dated, 18/8/16. According to the complainant when the investigator reached the house they entrusted the documents which demanded through the letter dated 16/8/16. The letter dated 24/9/16 Ex.tA8 issued by the 2nd opposite party shows that they repudiated the claim for breach of condition No.1 of Motor Vehicle Policy.
In the complaint the complainant stated that since her husband was under treatment for serious renal failure he was undergoing treatment like dialysis during those periods and he died on 22/10/16. The vehicle was stolen from her house during the period of treatment. From the documents produced it is clear that the 2nd opposite party got knowledge about theft on or before 13/8/16. Considering the situation of the complainant, we are of opinion that there was no deliberate delay or latches on the part of the complainant in informing the theft to the 2nd opposite party. It is true that in the FIR date of information is shown as 24/8/16. But it is clear from the Ext.A7 that the 2nd opposite party received the claim intimation on 13/8/16. Apart from that PW2 also deposed that they give information to the Police Station on the next day of theft itself. Thus in our view, this cannot be treated as a case of delay in intimating the theft and it caused the treated as violation of condition No.1 of the insurance policy. In Om Praksh Vs. Reliance General Insurance and Another, reported in CPJ 2017(IV) page 10 Hon’ble Supreme Court held that rejection of claim on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy holders in insurance industry. “If reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on ground of delay – it would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified and found to be correct by the Investigator – condition regarding delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine - Consumer protection act aims at providing better protection of interest of consumers - It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction – This laudable object should not be forgotten while considering claims made under Act.” In the instant case complainant’s husband was not well and during the treatment period the vehicle was stolen from her house. Therefore opposite party is not justified in rejecting claim of the complainant without understanding her situation. The 2nd opposite party Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability to indemnify the insured. The repudiation of the claim of complainant amounts to deficiency in service. The vehicle lost irrecoverably. As per the Ext.A4 the IDV of the vehicle is Rs. 40,200. The insurance company is bound to pay said mount to the complainant.
In the result the complaint is allowed. 2nd opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 40,200/- (Rupees Forty thousand and Two hundred only) to the complainant with 8% interest from the date of complaint till realization. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) towards cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of November, 2017.
Sd/-Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Suja Thomas(Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of Death Certificate
Ext.A2 - Booking from & Receipt voucher
Ext.A3 - Registration Certificate
Ext.A4 - Policy Schedule dtd July 30, Saturday.
Ext.A5 - FIR
Ext.A6 - Original Acknowledgment receipt
Ext.A7 - Letter dtd 16-8-2016
Ext.A8 - Letter dtd. 24-9-2016
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Certificate cum package policy schedule
Ext.B2 - Policy package details
Ext.B3 - Motor claim form.
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- br/-
Compared by:-
