Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

237/2013

K.SenthilKumar,S/o.V.Govindan, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,Service Vertical Centre - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.M.K.Supradeeban

08 Feb 2016

ORDER

                                                              Complaint presented on  :  10.12.2013

                                                                 Order pronounced on  :  08.02.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,         :      PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,            :     MEMBER II

 

MONDAY  THE  08^th   DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016

 

C.C.NO.237/2013

 

 

K.Senthilkumar,

S/O.V.Govindan,

No.218, 17^th Street,

Periyar Nagar, Chennai – 82.

                                                                                                 ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

	The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Service Vertical Centre, No.115, Prakasam Salai Chennai – 600 108.
	...Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                  12.12.2013

Counsel for Complainant                      :M/S M.K.Supradeeban

Counsel for  Opposite party                     :Nageswaran & Narichania

 

 

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant is the owner of Bike of Splendor Plus and the said Bike was insured with the Opposite Party under a package policy No.411800/31/2013/2724. The period of policy starts from  12.07.2012 to 11.07.2013. On 03.07.2013 the Complainant reached his office by Bike and parked the Bike in parking allotted by the company and locked it and after work at about 6.30p.m. the Complainant’s utter shock and surprise the bike was missing from the parking zone. The Complainant preferred a Complaint of theft of Bike with the Manali New Town Police Station on the same day and the Sub-Inspector of Police, Crime Branch refused to receive the same. Hence the Complainant sent a Complaint to him on 04.07.2013 through speed post and the same had been received by him. Again the Complainant  preferred a Complaint with the Commissioner of Police on  11.07.2013 and the said Complaint was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madhavaram. On  11.07.2013 the Complainant intimated about the theft of vehicle to the Opposite Party who issued the policy through a Telegram. The Opposite Party questioned the maintainability of the claim on the ground that the Communication was not made to him within 48 hours as stipulated in the policy and the   same was intimated to him with delay of 8 days the police registered FIR only on 04.09.2013. The Opposite Party being the  Insurer of the vehicle involved in theft has to indemnify the insured value after due scrutinisation of documents. The purpose of the insurance is to share the loss and to secure  the social justice to the insured from unexpected pages of life. Thereby the Opposite Party had committed deficiency in service towards the Complainant. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to direct the Opposite Party to  pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for mental agony and damages and also for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

2.WRITTEN VERSION IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant had insured Hero Honda Motor Cycle Spendor Plus bearing Registration No.TN 04 AA 4749 under policy No.411800/31/2013/2724 and the policy period was from 12.07.2012 to 11.07.2013 is true. It was reported that the Complainant’s motor cycle was stolen from the parking place in front of Complainant’s work spot i.e. Triway Container Terminal at Napalayam Chennai – 600 103 on 03.07.2013 at about 6.30 p.m. The Complainant informed the Opposite Party about the theft of the vehicle only on 11.07.2013 i.e. after 8 days from the date of occurrence of the theft of the Complainant’s motor cycle. As  per the terms and conditions of the said policy a claim for theft of vehicle is not payable if theft is not reported to the insurance company with 48 hours of its occurrence. The Opposite Party duly informed the Complainant vide its registered letter dated 17.07.2013 that as there was a delay of 8 days in intimating the theft that the claim under the policy is not tenable and further informed the Complainant that the Opposite Party was arranging for an investigation without prejudice to their rights. The Opposite Party investigator Mr.R.Chindhan Rajanikanth  submitted a investigation report dated  20.09.2013 that the theft was real and the case was registered under section 379 I.P.C. The Opposite Party informed the Complainant vide letter dated 23.09.2013 that the Complainant had intimated the claim after 8 days  from the date of occurrence of theft of the motor cycle and hence the Opposite Party intimated the Complainant that Opposite Party was constrained to close the file as “no claim”. Therefore the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays that this Hon’ble form may be pleased to dismiss the Complaint as against the Opposite Party with cost.

3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1.Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2.Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

4.POINT:

          The admitted facts are  that the Complainant’s  bike  Splendor Plus was insured with the Opposite Party under a package policy No.411800/31/2013/2724 for the period from  12.07.2012 to 11.07.2013 and the said policy marked as Ex.A2 & B1  and on 03.07.2013 morning  the Complainant parked his bike at his office  and after work at about 6.30 p.m. he found that his bike was stolen from the parking place  and the Complainant intimated the said theft to the Opposite Party under Ex.A8 on 11.07.2013 after 8 days of occurrence and the Opposite Party rejected the claim of the Complainant on the ground that  the incident was not reported to him  within 48 hours from the occurrence time as per the policy condition and however the same was intimated  with a delay of 8 days and hence the claim of the Complainant was repudiated as “no claim”.

          5. The Complainant  bike was committed theft  on 03.07.2013 and the same came to the knowledge of the Complainant at about 6.30.p.m. on that day . In Ex B1 Insurance policy(2^nd page ) the condition stipulated therein is “ claim for theft of vehicle not payable if theft not reported to company within 48 hours of its occurrence”.   Admittedly the theft was informed to the Opposite Party insurance company after 8 days of occurrence. Therefore the Complainant has breached the condition of the policy.

          6. The Complainant argued that  if the Insurance Company repudiated the claim only on the ground of  delay in intimation about the theft, if the claim is otherwise payable and to support the contention the Complainant relied on a judgment of the  State Consumer disputes Redressal Commission,  Chhattisgarh State  rendered in Appeal No. FA/12/596 dated 14.02.2013.

       7. The Opposite Party argued that if the condition of the policy violated and the theft was also intimated  with a delay of 8 days to the Insurance Company, the rejection of claim made by the Opposite Party is justifiable and further to his contention he relied on judgments reported in IV (2012) CPJ 441 (NC) NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS. TRILOCHAN JANE AND II (2015) CPJ 262 (NC) RAMESH CHANDRA MEGHWANSHI VS. ORIENTAL INS. CO LTD.  and therefore prays to dismiss the Complaint.

          8. The facts of the case in the judgment of the Chhattisgarh  State Commission the theft was required to be intimated within 48 hours and the Insurance Company was intimated after 72 hours and  in that case the State Commission held that the repudiation of claim only on the ground of delaying intimation is not sustainable after referring insurance regulatory and development authority,  circular dated 20.09.2011. The National Commission in its order referred the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in para 10 as follows:

          Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in United India Insurance Company Limited v. M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, reported  in IV (2004) CPJ 15 (SC) = V (2004) SLT 876=JT 2004 (8) SC 8 has  held that the terms of policy have to be construed as it is and nothing can be added or subtracted from the same. The policy provides that in the case of theft, the matter should be reported ‘immediately’. In the context of a theft of the car, word ‘immediately’ has to be construed strictly to make the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation.

As per the above ratio of the Hon’bles Supreme Court of India  the terms of the policy cannot be ordered  or subtracted from the same and further policy provides to report the theft immediately to the Insurance Company.  In the case in hand the policy provides to report the theft within 48 hours of the occurrence. However after 8 days of occurrence only the theft was intimated to the Opposite Party which is in violation to Ex.B1 policy and as against the ratio of the Supreme Court. The National Commission also held that delaying in reporting theft of the car for 9 days would be a violation of condition of the policy and deprives the right of the insurer. Therefore in view of the above ratio of the Supreme Court and National Commission, the order of the Chhattisgarh State Commission referred by the Complainant is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand . Therefore the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service  in rejecting the claim made by the Complainant after 8 days of the theft and accordingly this point is answered.

9. POINT:2

          Since the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief in this Complaint and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed without cost.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 08^th day of February 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex. A1 dated 13.02.2007                  Registration Certificate

Ex.A2 dated 12.07.2012                   Insurance Policy

Ex.A3 dated 04.07.2013                   Police Complaint

Ex.A4 dated 07.07.2013                   Acknowledgement card

Ex.A5 dated 11.07.2013         Police Complaint to commissioner of police

Ex.A6 dated 11.07.2013                   Acknowledgement for Complaint

Ex.A7 dated 11.07.2013                   Telegram to Opposite Party with receipt

Ex.A8 dated 11.07.2013                   Theft Intimation to Opposite Party

Ex.A9 dated 16.07.2013                   Police Complaint

Ex.A10 dated 17.07.2013                 Communication from Opposite Party

Ex.A11 dated  24.07.2013      Representation to Opposite Party

Ex.A12 dated 01.08.2013                 Representation to Opposite Party

Ex.A13 dated 07.08.2013                 Complaint to commissioner of police

Ex.A14 dated 07.08.2013                 Acknowledgement for Complaint

Ex.A15 dated 04.09.2013                 F.I.R.

Ex.A16 dated 23.09.2013                 Communication of Claim Rejection by Opposite

                                                    Party

Ex.A17 dated 16.04.2014                 Not Traceable Certificate

            

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

Ex.B1 dated 12.07.2012         Insurance Policy

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT