Date of Filing:14.12.2007 Date of Order: 13.03.2008 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2008 PRESENT Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 2499 OF 2007 Gangabyrappa, S/o Late Chinnappa Raju, No.68, I Cross, 6th Main, Vinayaka Nagara, Mysore Road, Bangalore-560 026. Complainant V/S The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., R/by its Manager, No.19/1, I Floor, III Cross, Chikkanna Garden, Shankarmath Compound, Chamarajpet, Bangalore-560 004. Opposite Party ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This complaint is filed U/Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts of the case are that, on 27/10/2006 the vehicle belonged to the complainant baring registration No.KA-08/1957 Metodor 407 was stole from the complainants house premises. He filed complaint before the J.J. Nagar Police. The Police have registered a case in FIR No.173/2006 against unknown persons. The Police was submitted C report. The complainant had taken policy from the opposite party for one year w.e.f., from 14/12/2005 to 13/12/2006. The said Policy is comprehensive policy. Complainant gave intimation with all relevant documents to the opposite party. The claim of the complainant is repudiated on the ground that vehicle had no fitness certificate. The repudiation of the claim is unjustifiable. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint for grant of compensation. 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance through advocate and filed defense version stating that the vehicle in question was insured with the opposite party. The complainant has not obtained the witness certificate from the RTO. Hence the repudiation of the claim by opposite party is just and proper. Complainant had furnished proposal form. It has disclosed the value of the vehicle was at Rs.1,30,000/-. The fines certificate of the vehicle has been expired on 6/3/2006. Hence, on the date of theft there was no fitness certificate to the vehicle. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Arguments are heard. 4. The point for consideration is:- Whether the opposite party is justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant? REASONS 5. All most all the facts are admitted in this case. The complainant had taken policy from the opposite party. Policy certificate is produced. The effective date of policy was from 14/12/2005 to 13/12/2006. The complainant had produced FIR wherein the Police was registered FIR in Crime No.173/2006 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 379 IPC. The Police have submitted C final report. The complainant has produced FIR and also C final report. During the subsistence of the policy the theft of vehicle took place. The complainant has put forward of the claim. The opposite party has rejected the claim solely on the ground that on the date of theft the vehicle had no fitness certificate. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the repudiation of claim by the opposite party is unjustified and not proper. There is nothing to do with the fitness certificate and theft of the vehicle. The opposite party could not have reject the claim of the complainant on the ground that the vehicle had no fitness certificate on the date of theft. On this point there is a decision of Honble National Commission, New Delhi reported in 2007 CPJ 189(NC) page-189 wherein their lordships has held as under:- (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986-section2(1)(g)-Insurance-theft of insured vehicle-Repudiation on ground that vehicle at relevant time did not have fitness certificate-In view of survey report and documents produced on record, repudiation unjustified-loss assessed by Surveyor payable. Again on para-13 to 15 of the judgment it has been held as under:- 13. The vehicle was stolen in the right of 3rd/4th March, 1994, for which First Information Report was lodged with the Police Station. Information was also given to the Insurance Company, on 4th March 1994, The Insurance Company rejected the claim on the ground that the vehicle at the time of the theft did not have a fitness certificate. 14. Further, the documents produced on record do justify the contention that the vehicle was stationary or that there was no fitness certificate. Annexure R-3 collectively produced on record mentions that the fitness certificate was to expire on 5th March, 1994. The application of temporary permit was granted to the complainant on 6th March, 1993. 15. In view o the survey report as well as the documents which are produced on record the repudiation by the Insurance Company cannot be justified. Therefore, the above authority of law is the best answer to the objections taken by the opposite party. The declaration of the value of the vehicle at the time of insurance was Rs.1,30,000/-. Therefore, the opposite party shall be directed to pay the claim to the extent of Rs. 1,30,000/- to the complainant. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 6. The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 1,30,000/- to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled to interest at 12% p.a on Rs. 1,30,000/- from the date of repudiation of the claim (i.e., on 31/3/2007) till realization. 7. The opposite party is directed to pay the award amount with interest within 30 days from the date of this order directly to the complainant by way of D.D or cheque with intimation to this Forum. 8. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards the costs of the present proceeding from the opposite party. 9. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2008. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
