D.O.F:17/10/2019

                                                                                                  D.O.O:29/07/2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

CC.No.203/2019

Dated this, the 29^th day of July 2021

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                            : MEMBER

Suresh Mathew aged 53 years,

S/o Late Mathew

R/at Chelolikkal House,                                                         : Complainant

Paduppu Shankaran pady Post,

Karivedakam Village

Kasaragod District and Taluk

671541

(Adv: E. Sukumaran)

                                                                          And

The Manager

The New India Assurance Company Ltd: Opposite party

1^st floor, Oasis Plaza, Amey road

Kasaragod Post

Kasaragod District – 671121

(Adv : A.C Ashok Kumar)

ORDER

SRI.KRISHNAN.K  :PRESIDENT

The case of the complainant is as follows:-

1. The complainant is the registered owner of Torus Goods Vehicle bearing registration number KL-14X 5205. The vehicle was insured with opposite party under policy No.76180031180300013142 and period of coverage is between 01-03-2019 to 29-02-2020. It is a bumper to bumper insurance and total premium is Rs.72,650/- per year. On 07-04-2019 at 12.20 am driver of the vehicle took the vehicle to JP engineering works at Anchammile in Chengala Village for minor repairs. Driver parked the vehicle and locked it. On the same day morning driver came to know that the 8 tyres with disk were stolen by thief by putting laterate stone instead of Jacky. Complainant sustained a loss of Rs.2,54,000/-. A complaint was lodged before Vidyanagar Police Station crime No.148/2019 dated 07-04-2019 under section 379 IPC.  Case is undetected. Intimation regarding the same is sent to the opposite party and requested to indemnify the loss incurred by the complainant. But the opposite party refused. The complainant claims Rs. 2,79,192/- for loss of 8 tyres  Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service along with cost of proceedings and further reliefs.
2. Opposite party filed its version. Opposite party admits that the vehicle is insured with opposite party and that complainant informed about the theft. Liability of opposite party arises as per terms of the policy. As per condition No.2 (a) of the policy. Opposite party is not liable to indemnify in case of any damages to accessories by house breaking, theft or burglary alone unless the vehicle itself is stolen. Opposite party contents that there is no deficiency in service and complainant not entitled for compensation and that complaint may be dismissed with costs.
3. Complainant filed chief affidavit and cross examined as PW1. Following documents produced by complainant for substantiate his case: - Ext A1 copy of FIR in crime 148/2019. Ext A2 copy of statement of complainant before Vidyanagar Police Station. Ext A3 RC, Ext A4 refer notice by police. A5 insurance copy, A6 reply of opposite party, A7 invoice issued by Swamy tyre house Kasaragod. Opposite party produced attested copy of policy marked as Ext B1.
4. Points for consideration are:-

1. Whether complainant is entitled to insurance coverage for loss of tyres by theft without committing theft of vehicle?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service from opposite party is not accepting the insurance claim? If so for what reliefs?

5. Both issues discussed together for convenience. Motor Insurance in India covers for the loss or damage caused to the automobile or its parts due to natural and man-made calamites. It provides accident cover for individual owners of the vehicle while driving and also for passengers and third party legal liability. It also helps to cover for damages caused other than an accident like fire, theft etc.
6. Apex Court has recently held in “Om Prakash Vs Reliance General Insurance and another” reported in lV (2017) CPJ 10 (SC) that rejection of the claim on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy holders.
7. In the present case, evidence on records reveals that complainant’s is vehicles tyres are stolen. The insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred and the police after investigation, have lodged a final report, tyres were not traced.  The surveyors/investigators appointed by the insurance company have found the claim of the theft to be genuine, then the rejection of claim is not acceptable on the ground that no claim was made for theft of vehicle.
8. The insurance company will indemnify the insured against loss or damages to the vehicle insured as here under and its accessories whilst thereon.

1. Damage to tyre and tubes unless the vehicle is damaged at the same time in which case the liability of the company shall be limited to 50% of the cost of replacement.

9. Claim is made for theft of eight tyres of the vehicle which were stolen when it was parked outside.
10. The rejection of insurance claim and its reasons on not based on insurance contract or its terms and conditions. Insurance company is liable to pay benefits to the complainant, the price of four tyres minus depreciation of 25% of its value. Total price paid for eight tyres to Rs.2,02,400/-. So value of four tyres value come to Rs. 1,01,200/-. Deducting 25% of price as depreciation it comes to Rs.75,900/- so insurance company is liable to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.75,900/-.
11. The insurance company rejected the claim of complainant not on legal or genuine reasons but on technical reasons and thus there is deficiency in service on the part of insurance company in delaying the payment of insurance benefits. Opposite party shall pay compensation for the same. Considering the nature of contract, liability thereof, circumstances of the case a sum of Rs.10,000/- is found to be a reasonable compensation . Complainant is also liable to pay cost of litigation.

In the result the complainant is allowed in part. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.75,900/- towards price of four tyre to the complainant. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) for deficiency in service and Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as the cost of litigation within 30 days of receipt of the order.

​

      Sd/-                                                     Sd/-                                                        Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

A1 – Copy of FIR

A2 – Copy of complaint

A3 – RC

A4 – Refer notice by police

A5 – Insurance Copy

A6 – Reply of opposite party

A7 – Invoice

B1 – Attested copy of policy

Witness Examined

PW1 – Suresh Mathew

​      Sd/-                                                     Sd/-                                                        Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Ps/