Palasa Mallikarjun,S/o Kanna Babu,Occ:Business,R/O.H.No.6-3-2/1,Z.P Quarters,Pakabanda Bazar ,Khammam - Complainant(s)
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd.,Rep by its Branch Manager ,Khammam - Opp.Party(s)
25 Nov 2010
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT KHAMMAM Varadaiah Nagar, Opp CSI Church consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/121
Palasa Mallikarjun,S/o Kanna Babu,Occ:Business,R/O.H.No.6-3-2/1,Z.P Quarters,Pakabanda Bazar ,Khammam
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd.,Rep by its Branch Manager ,Khammam
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 25th day of November, 2010 CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com., L.L.B. - President, 2. Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, B.Sc. B.L. - Member 3. Sri R. Kiran Kumar, B.Sc. L.L.B - Member C.C. No.121/2009 Between: Pasala Mallikarjun, S/o Kanna Babu, Age:38 years, Occu:Business, R/o H.No.6-3-2/1, Z.P.Quarters, Pakabanda Bazar, Khammam. Complainant And The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Wyra Road, Khammam. Opposite party. This C.C. came before us for hearing in the presence of Sri. R.Kiran Kumar, Advocate for complainant and Sri Sita Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:- ORDER (Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member) This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant insured his Maruthi Omni Van bearing No. AP 20 G-1111 with the opposite party on 03-08-2006, the opposite party issued the policy bearing No.431401/2007 for a period of one year, which covered the risk of damage, theft or loss. On 20-08-2006, at night the complainant parked his vehicle behind his house, on the next day morning, he found that the vehicle was missing. The complainant further submitted that the vehicle was not traced out in spite of making thorough searches and as such lodged a compliant before the police, concerned and registered the case under section 379/IPC, after investigation the police filed final report by stating that the vehicle was undetected. Therefore, the complainant claimed the amounts under the policy, but the opposite party refused the claim, it amounts to deficiency of service and as such filed the complaint before the Forum by praying to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for cause of loss of insured vehicle and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and costs. 2. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit and filed the following documents, which were marked as Exhibits. Ex.A1:- Policy copy. Ex.A2:- Premium payment receipt, dt.02-08-2006. Ex.A3:- Photo copy of F.I.R., dt.07-09-2006. Ex.A4:- Attested copy of final report, dt.25-01-2007. Ex.A5:- Letter dated 04-12-2007 addressed by the B.M. of opposite party. Ex.A6:- Photo copy of Certificate of registration. Ex.A7:- Pollution control certificate. 3. On being noticed, the opposite party appeared through its counsel and filed counter with the following averments. 4. In the counter, the opposite party admitted the issuance of policy bearing No.431401/2007 for a period of one year, on Maruthi Van, bearing No.AP 20 G-1111 of the complainant and denied the other averments by contending that the intimation with regard to the theft was communicated to them after one year i.e. on 14-08-2007 and the complaint was also lodged after lapse of 15days from the date of occurrence and also contended that as per condition No.1 of the policy, the notice shall be given in writing immediately after occurrence of any accidental loss and shall also give required information regarding the incident. The opposite party also submitted that the delay in intimation is a gross violation of terms and conditions of the policy and as such there is no deficiency of service and there is no liability on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint. 6. In support of their averments, both the parties filed written arguments with the same averments as mentioned in the complaint and counter. 7. In view of the above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is, whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for? Point:- As seen from the above averments, there is no dispute regarding the issuance of policy bearing No.431401/2007 in the name of the complainant to his Maruthi800 Omni Van bearing No.AP 20 G-1111 for a period of one year i.e. from 03-08-2006 to 02-08-2007, the risk covered under the policy is in the event of damage, theft or loss. The only dispute is with regard to the delay in making claim. It is the case of the complainant, on 20-08-2006 he kept the vehicle behind his house and on 21-08-2006, he found that the vehicle was missing and after making searches, lodged a compliant before the police and waited till the date of filing final report and claimed the amounts entitled under the policy, when it was declared as undetected and it is the case of the opposite party that the complainant never complained, immediately after the incident and also taken one year time for making claim and as such it is a gross violation of terms and conditions of the policy as there is an abnormal delay in intimation of theft. As per the averments and documents filed by the complainant after receipt of complaint, the police registered the case under section 379 of IPC and after investigation, submitted the final report on 25-01-2007 before the 1st Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam by finding that the case referred as undetected. As such it is clear that the complainant waited for missing vehicle till the date of final report with an intention to trace out the vehicle without any obstacles. When he came to know that the vehicle is not detected, claimed the amounts as assured. However, the opposite party rejected his claim by taking only one plea that there is a delay of one year time in making claim, but as per the Exs.A3 & A4, the time consumed for a period of 5 months during the course of investigation and after that the complainant might have taken some time for submitting claim form by procuring required documents and moreover as per Exs.A3 & A4, it is a fact that the Maruthi800 of the complainant was lost and after investigation, it was declared as undetected and as per the said documents the police submitted the final report on 25-01-2007, it clearly shows that the police have taken five months time for making investigation and for filing final report and as such the plea taken by the opposite party with regard to the delay is not acceptable and as such we feel that the objection raised by the opposite party is only on technical grounds and it is against the principles of natural justice as the missing of vehicle was already established and as such the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant. 8. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party to pay Rs.90,000/- towards assured amount under the policy bearing No.431401/2007 together with interest @9% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. 04-12-2007 to the complainant and also directed to pay Rs.1000/- towards costs of the litigation. Typed to my dictation, corrected by me and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 25th day of November, 2010. President Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined for complainant and opposite parties: -None- Exhibits marked for complainant:- Ex.A1:- Policy copy. Ex.A2:- Premium payment receipt, dt.02-08-2006. Ex.A3:- Photo copy of F.I.R., dt.07-09-2006. Ex.A4:- Attested copy of final report, dt.25-01-2007. Ex.A5:- Letter dated 04-12-2007 addressed by the B.M. of opposite party. Ex.A6:- Photo copy of Certificate of registration. Ex.A7:- Pollution control certificate. Exhibits marked for opposite party:- -Nil President Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
