Facts of the complaint case in brief are that the complainant purchased a motorcycle on 28.01.2009 from TVS Annapurna Automobiles and after 10 to 15 days of purchase he found that there was a problem in the lock set. Complainant then brought the motorcycle to the TVS Annapurna Automobiles and reported the problem and kept the motorcycle in the TVS showroom as per their instruction for about two hours and after two hours when the complainant came to take his motorcycle back, he was informed that the problem of lock set has been solved. The motorcycle of the complainant was fully insured with OP Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Unfortunately, on 03.02.2012 at about 7.10 to 7.35 p.m. the said motorcycle was stolen from the front gate of the house of the complainant by some unknown thief. After thorough search complainant lodged a missing diary at local Pradhan Nagar P.S. and on 06.02.2012 he informed the incident to the Manager of the OP in writing. 90 to 95 days after the aforesaid theft of the motorcycle, Investigator/Surveyor of OP Insurance Company Mr. A. P. Maitra came to the residence of the complainant to investigate/assess the loss. During that time he demanded the key of the motorcycle and all relevant documents and the same were provided by the complainant to the Investigator. Then the Investigator Mr. Maitra informed him that the key number of the motorcycle is mismatch with the key number as mentioned in the cash bill/credit bill.
Complainant then and there made contact with the Manager Mr. Kamal Lakhotia of TVS Annapurna Automobiles and after enquiry into the matter Mr. Lakhotia informed the complainant that the entire lock set of the motorcycle has been changed for which they did not give any document to the complainant and he further assured the complainant that if required he can issue a letter for getting the insurance claim. The complainant stated the entire facts to the Investigator Mr. Maitra, but he refused to receive any document of TVS Annapurna Automobiles stating that the document has no value. The Investigator repeatedly stated to the complainant that he is not entitled to get any claim from the OP as the key number of the motorcycle is mismatch with the credit bill. Complainant subsequently met the Investigator Mr. Maitra who suggested him to apply for payment of 50% of total claim amount and accordingly the complainant made an application claiming 50% of the claim amount. After some days Surveyor Mr. Maitra told him to bring the letter from Mr. Lakhotia of TVS Annapurna Automobiles in respect of change of lock set and accordingly the complainant collected the document on 18.12.2012 from Mr. Lakhotia and handed over the same to the Surveyor and sometimes after when the complainant requested the Surveyor to return the document he refused. Subsequently, the complainant came to learn that the Surveyor/Investigator submitted a report before the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and on the basis of the said report, the OP agreed to refund a very small sum towards his insurance claim. Hence, this case.
OP entered appearance and contested the case by filing a written version wherein the material averments made in the complaint is denied and it has been contended inter-alia that the case of the complainant is not maintainable. It has been contended by the OP that the complainant did not inform the OP regarding the change of lock set of his motorcycle by the TVS Annapurna Automobiles nor he furnished any documentary evidence in this regard. It has been further submitted by the OP that in the purchase invoice the serial no. of the lock set is written 0397 but the ignition key submitted by the complainant to the Surveyor is bearing the serial no.0730 but in spite of mismatch of original lock set of the motorcycle, the OP as per request letter of the complainant considered the 50% claim amount of the complainant and intimated him that the competent authority has approved the claim of the complainant for Rs.21,950/- in full and final settlement of the claim. It has been further submitted by the OP that the present complaint is misconceived and as there was no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the OP, so, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and the present case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
To prove the case, the complainant has filed the following documents:-
1. Photocopy of letter dated 06.03.2012, issued by the complainant.
2. Photocopy of intimation letter to the A.R.T.O. dated 14.05.2012.
3. Photocopy of F.I.R. with the Pradhan Nagar Police Station dated 03.02.2012.
4. Photocopy of letter dated 18.12.2012.
5. Photocopy of certified copy of F.R.T. of Pradhan Nagar P.S. Case No.61/12, case lodge by the complainant.
6. Photocopy of letter dated 24.04.2013, issued by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (enclose loss voucher).
OP has filed the following documents :-
a) Copy of survey report of Mr. Aravinda Prasad Maitra is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – “A”.
b) Request letter of complainant is filed herewith and marked as Annexure “B”.
c) The approval letter issued by Opp. Party dated 24.04.2013 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure “C”.
Complainant has filed evidence in-chief.
Complainant has filed written notes of argument.
OP has filed evidence-in-chief.
OP has filed Written Notes of Argument.
Points for determination
1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP ?
2. Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
Decision with reason
Both issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.
It is admitted fact that the motorcycle of the complainant was insured with the OP and the insured declare value of the said motorcycle was Rs.55,000/-. It is also not disputed that the said motorcycle was stolen on 03/02/2012 evening for which the complainant lodged a missing diary at Pradhan Nagar P.S. and on 06.02.2012 informed the OP in respect of theft of the motorcycle and submitted his claim. It is also not disputed that the OP after receiving the intimation appointed a Surveyor/Investigator to investigate and assess the loss and at the time of survey, Surveyor Mr. A. P. Maitra found that the number of the lock set/ignition key of the motorcycle which was handed over to the Surveyor along
with other documents by the complainant is dissimilar with the key number as mentioned in the credit bill/cash bill and in the purchase invoice the serial number of original lock set/ignition key is written 0397 but the ignition key submitted by the complainant/insured to the Surveyor is bearing the serial no. 0730.
It has been contended by the OP that the lock set/ignition key being an important integrated part/safety device of the motorcycle, the complainant was required to inform the OP regarding the change of lock set/ignition key but the complainant did not inform about the replacement of the lock set and in spite of mismatch of original ignition key of the motorcycle, the OP considered the claim amount as per request letter of the insured/complainant (Annexure-B) on humanitarian ground and as the complainant agreed to accept the 50% of claim amount, the competent authority has approved the claim of the complainant for R.21,950/- only in full and final settlement of the claim.
Here we find that the complainant has insured his motorcycle with the OP and availed insurance policy which is admitted by the OP. So, the complainant has come under the purview of ‘Consumer’ as contemplated in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The OP denied to settle the claim of the complainant only on the ground that the lock set of the theft motorcycle is not matching with the lock set handed over to the surveyor of the Insurance Company by the complainant at the time of investigation of the matter and the said fact was not disclosed by the complainant to the Insurance Company earlier.
From the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as evidence laid by the parties, we find that few days after purchase of the motorcycle some problem arose in the lock set and the complainant then brought the motorcycle to the TVS Annapurna Automobiles wherefrom the motorcycle was purchased and reported the problem and as per their instruction he kept the motorcycle for about two hours in the showroom and after two hours when he came to take the motorcycle back, he was informed by the mechanic of the automobile showroom that the problem of the lock set has been solved. In this regard, the Manager of said automobile showroom Mr. Kamal Lakhotia sent a letter dated 18.12.2012 to the surveyor of the OP. On perusal of the said letter it is clear that the complainant came to the workshop of the Annapurna TVS Automobiles due to lock set problem within 10 to 15 days of purchase of the motorcycle and to satisfy the customer their mechanic changed his lock set, but unfortunately he did not maintain any paper works for the same. This letter corroborates the facts stated by the complainant in his complaint petition. So, it is clear that the change of lock set of the motorcycle was not in the knowledge of the complainant till the date when he handed over the lock set to the surveyor. But it is surprising that the OP did not consider the letter dated 18.12.2012 of the Manager of Annapurna TVS Automobiles. Here we find that OP Insurance Company cooked up certain grounds just to repudiate the claim of the complainant. The grounds shown by the OP that due to mismatch of lock set, complainant is not entitled to get his insured claim, but on humanitarian ground OP agreed to pay 50% of the claim on the basis of the letter of the complainant (Annexure-B) cannot be accepted as we find that the said letter was written by the complainant being advised by the Surveyor of the OP Mr. Maitra. The amount which is allotted by the OP is fully unjustified and clearly amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP.
An Insurance Company should be honest and forthright in its approach while setting an insurance claim and the genuine claim of the insured should not be rejected on flimsy and technical grounds, otherwise the confidence of the people in insurance companies would be deeply eroded. On the mere ground of mismatch of lock set/ignition key, the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant which is not basic or germane to the settling of the insurance claim made by the complainant. The motorcycle was stolen during the insured period. So, the Insurance Company will have to pay an amount of Rs.55,000/- i.e., the purchasing cost of the motorcycle to the complainant. Besides, a sum of Rs.10,000/- will be paid by the OP to the complainant as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment to meet up the ends of justice. A sum of Rs.5,000/- will be paid on account of litigation cost.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the Consumer Case No.59/S/2013 be and the same is allowed on contest in part with cost.
Complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.55,000/- i.e., the purchasing cost of the motorcycle from the OP.
The complainant is further entitled to get a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment from the OP.
The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost from the OP.
OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs.55,000/- i.e., the purchasing cost of the motorcycle, by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.
OP is further directed to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- by issuing an A/C payee cheque in the name of the complainant towards compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment within 45 days from the date of this order.
OP is further directed to pay sum of Rs.5,000/- by issuing an A/C payee cheque in the name of the complainant towards litigation within 45 days from the date of this order.
Failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded sum of Rs.65,000/- from the date of this order till full realization.
In case of default, the complainant is at liberty to execute this order through this Forum as per law.
Let copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.
