Date of filing: 09.06.2014.
Date of disposal: 27.01.2015.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., President (FAC)
Sri S. Sreeram, B.Com., B.A., B.L., Member
Tuesday, the 27th day of January, 2015
C.C.No.131 of 2014
Between:
Kandhi Brahma Reddy, S/o Veera Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 38 years, D.No.76-17-695, Urmila Subba Rao Nagar, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada – 12.
…..Complainant.
And
The New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Rep: by its Deputy Manager, Claims Hub, 3rd Floor, Datha Sai Vemuri Towers, M.G. Road, Labbipet, Vijayawada – 10.
.. … Opposite party.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 12.01.2015, in the presence of Sri P. Raj Sekhar, advocate for complainant; Sri V.V.S. Sau Babu, advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S. Sreeram)
This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party directing to pay Rs.6,50,000/- towards claim amount, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, for costs and other reliefs.
1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
That the complainant purchased a lorry bearing No. AP 15 X 7777 and insured the same with the opposite party vide policy bearing No. 62070131120100008477 valid from 30-8-2012 to 29-8-2013. That the complainant on 14-12-2012 orally leased the lorry to one Rajendra Prasad for few days due to personal problems and on 17-12-2012 when the lorry was parked near Gollapudi Commercial Complex, Gollapudi, it was committed theft by unknown persons and that the complainant searched for the lorry and finally lodged a complaint before the one Town Police Station and the police registered the case in Cr.No.971/2012 and after investigation, they closed the case as undetectable on 30.6.2013. The complainant intimated the opposite party and furnished all the required documents for settlement of claim. But the opposite party used to postpone the same and finally rejected the claim on 9-5-2014 on the ground that the complainant is not entitled for claim amount as he leased out the vehicle to one K.Rajendra Prasad without informing the opposite party. The complainant got issued legal notice dt.20-5-2014 to the opposite party who received the same and got issued a reply on 22-5-2014, but not settled the claim and as such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence, the complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite party. The opposite party in its version admitted about the issuance of policy to complainant and about commission of theft of lorry which is in possession of one K.Rajendra Prasad. It is contended that, after receipt of information from complainant, they appointed an investigator and came to know that the complainant leased out the lorry to one K.Rajendra Prasad for two months from 14.12.2012 for Rs.13,000/- and on 17-12-2012 it was committed theft while it was in possession of K.Rajendra Prasad, but not complainant. It is further contended that the complainant had not obtained specific endorsement from the opposite party with regard to hiring the vehicle and as such the complainant is not having insurable interest at the time of theft and thus violated the terms and conditions of policy and finally prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. The opposite party also filed additional counter contending that there was a delay of 14 days in lodging the FIR and also intimating to opposite party and as such the complainant also violated the general condition No.1 of policy and as such he is not entitled for any claim amount.
4. The complainant filed his chief affidavit reiterating the material averments of the complaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A7 on her behalf. The Deputy Manager of opposite party filed chief affidavit and got marked Ex.B1 to B3 on its behalf.
5. Heard both sides and perused the record.
6. Now the points that stood for consideration are:
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in settling the claim of complainant?
- If so, to what relief?
Point No.1:
7. The undisputed facts in this case are that the complainant is the registered owner of subject theft vehicle lorry bearing No. AP 15 X 7777 and the same is insured with the opposite party vide policy No.62070131120100008477 and the same is in force from 39.08.2012 to 29.08.2013. The complainant filed the certificate of registration regarding proof of ownership under Ex.A1 and the copy of policy under Ex.A2. The opposite party is also not disputing the said facts. Ex.A2/Ex.B1 policy schedule discloses that the vehicle was insured with the opposite party.
8. The main grievance of the complainant is that on 14-12-2012 the complainant orally leased the lorry to one K.Rajendra Prasad for few days and on 17-12-2012 when the lorry was parked near Gollapudi Commerical Complex, it was committed theft and after making searches, he informed the same to the opposite party immediately and lodged report with I town police and that the opposite party acknowledged the claim, but so far not settled the claim on the ground that the complainant has violated the conditions of the policy as there is a delay of 14 days in lodging compliant with police and in informing to insurance company and on further ground that the complainant has not obtained any specific endorsement regarding lease of the lorry.
9. Admittedly the theft of vehicle had taken place on 17-12-2012 at 8.00 a.m when it was parked at Gollapudi Commerical complex and the FIR was registered on 31-12-2012 by Vijayawada I town police station. Ex.A3 FIR in Cr.No.971/2012 of Vijayawada I town police station and the report annexed to it discloses that on 14-12-2012 the complainant gave the lorry to one K.Rajendra Prasad on lease and on 17-12-2012 while the said lorry was parked by Rajendra Prasad near Gollapudi Commercial Complex, it was committed theft and on information, the complainant and his relatives searched for the same and gave report to police on 31.12.2012. In the col.No.8 of Ex.A3 FIR also reveals that ‘reason for delay is for searching’. Further perusal of Ex.A4 discloses that the police referred the case as ‘undetectable’. It is not the contention of the complainant that he immediately approached the police after theft and gave report, but they refused to register the case. Further the complainant also not submitted any GD entry regarding information to police. As such, it is clear that there is a delay of nearly 14 days in lodging FIR as contended by the opposite party in its additional counter. Further there is no whisper in the complaint regarding intimation to insurance company. In this regard, the contention of the complainant is that he intimated the opposite party about theft of vehicle and submitted the documents for settlement of claim. Except the oral assertions, the complainant not filed any document to show that he informed to the opposite party immediately after theft. The condition No.1 of Ex.A2/Ex.B1 policy mandates that
“Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require ………………….. and in case of theft or criminal act, which may be subject of a claim under this policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company”
10. In the case on hand, the complainant failed to inform the same to police immediately after occurrence of theft and as such there is a delay of 14 days in lodging FIR. Further it seems that the complainant also not intimated the same to opposite party immediately. The complainant being prudent men ought to have give report to police immediately after occurrence of theft. All the above facts disclose that the complainant has not properly explained the delay in giving report to police and to insurance company and as such he has violated the conditions of the policy.
11. The Hon’ble National Commission in the decision reported in 2014 CPR 427 NC Between : Ramesh Chandra Vs. ICICI Lombord General Insruance Company Ltd., where under the Hon’ble National Commission not interfered with the order of Hon’ble State Commission which upheld the order of District Forum, who allowed the complaint and granted compensation on non-standard basis. It is further held that delay of 11 days in reporting the theft to authorities obviously had prevented the insurance company as also the police to start timely investigation with a view to locate and recover the vehicle and also held that the insured had failed to take proper care to protect the interest of insurance company and justified the repudiating of claim. The Hon’ble National Commission in a decision reported in 2014(1) CPR 473 NC held that
“Immediate intimation to the police and filing of FIR are of paraamunt importance in theft cases and any delay in this respect will have serious adverse impact on the interest of insurance company”
12. Now coming to the case on hand, there is an abnormal delay of 14 days in lodging FIR and in intimation to insurance company and the complainant has not explained the said delay satisfactorily. As such relying on the decisions mentioned supra, we are of the opinion that the delay of 14 days in lodging FIR with police had prevented the police to start timely investigation with a view to locate and recover the vehicle and that the said delay will have serious adverse impact on the interest of company. As such the repudiation of claim by opposite party under Ex.A5 is justifiable one and we found no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in this regard.
13. The complainant also relied on the following decisions to substantiate its contention that the delay in lodging FIR is fatal.
- 2014 CPR 224 NC between Ramesh Chandra Vs. ICICI Lombord General Insurance co., wherein it was held that “Theft was reported to authorities after a delay of 11 days which prevented the insurance company to start timely investigation”
- 2014 CPR 119 NC between Hukam Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co., Ltd, wherein it was held that “Intimation given to financing bank cannot be a substitute to intimation required to be given to insurance company’
- 2014 (3) CPR 721 NC between Arjun Lal Jat Vs. HDFC Irgo General Insurane Co., Ltd., wherein it was held that “negligent act on the part of driver cannot be directed to reimburse the insured”
- Order in R.P.No.4251/13 of Hon’ble National Commission between Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd Vs. K.K.Valsalan regarding negligence of driver
- Order in R.P.No.2555/12 of Hon’ble National Commission between M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co., Ltd Vs. K.Eswara Prasad with regard to delay in lodging FIR is fatal
The said decisions are squarely applicable to the case on hand.
14. The other ground taken by opposite party for repudiating the claim is that the complainant had not taken any specific endorsement from them regarding hiring the vehicle to one K.Rajendra Prasad, covering the risks during contract period with 3rd parties or hirers and the complainant has no insurable interest at the time of theft. Admittedly as seen from the contents of the complaint and also report under Ex.A3, the complainant leased out the lorry to one K.Rajendra Prasad on lease and during the said period, it was committed theft on 17-12-2012. As per the conditions of the policy, which are annexed to Ex.B1 policy, the complainant/insured shall obtain an endorsement in respect of lease or hire purchase or transfer of interest. But in this case, the complainant has not obtained the endorsement from the opposite party regarding lease of vehicle and as such he has no insurable interest at the time of theft. As such, it is clear that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and hence, he is not entitled for any claim. The grounds taken by opposite party under Ex.A5 letter are justifiable. Further the opp.parties also got issued reply under Ex.A7/Ex.B2 to the notice of complainant under Ex.A6 with the above said facts.
Point No.2:
In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs.
Typewritten by Steno N. Hazarathaiah, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 27th day of January, 2015.
PRESIDENT (FAC) MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: -None- For the opposite party: -None-
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 Photocopy of ‘C’ book.
Ex.A2 Photocopy of policy schedule cum certifucate of insurance.
Ex.A3 31.12.2012 Photocopy of FIR.
Ex.A4 30.06.2013 Photocopyh of proceedings of of Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada and case diary. .
Ex.A5 09.05.2014 Photocopy of letter issued by OP to complainant.
Ex.A6 20.05.2014 Photocopy of legal notice got issued by complainant to OP.
Ex.A7 22.05.2014 Copy of reply got issued by OP to complainant.
On behalf of the opposite party:
Ex.B1 Copy of policy schedule cum certifucate of insurance.
Ex.B2 22.05.2014 Photocopy of reply got issued by OP to complainant.
Ex.B3 Postal acknowledgement.
PRESIDENT (FAC).
