<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 30.08.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 21st JANUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1936/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Mallikarjuna,S/o Shiva Mallegowda,Aged about 27 years,Residing at No.40, 1st Cross,Kalidasa Layout,Canara Bank Road, Srinagar,Bangalore – 50.Advocate – Sri.L.T.GopalV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Manager,Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,No.232/19, 1st Floor,Pavithra South Avenue,9th Main, 3rd Block, Jayanagar,Bangalore – 11.Advocate – Sri.A.N.Hegde2. M/s. TVS Finance and Services Ltd.,No.24, Haddows Road,Chennai – 560008.Reptd by its Manager.Advocate – Sri.Navendra S3. M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd.,Vigneswara Building,Near over bridge,No.2/7, Pudukkottai Road,Thiruchirapalli – 620020.Advocate – Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to settle the insurance claim with regard to IDV value of the vehicle and pay a compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant is the R.C owner of the vehicle KA-01-EE-3062. OP.1 covered the insurance of the said vehicle which was valid from 30.03.2007 to 29.03.2008. On 17.08.2007 during night time some culprits have committed theft of the said vehicle which was parked in front of the house of the complainant. Complainant searched for the same but could not succeed. Then lodged the complaint to the jurisdictional police on 04.09.2007. A case in crime No.179/2007 was registered and an FIR was submitted. After the investigation the concerned police submitted the ‘C’ final report, as they are unable to trace the vehicle and apprehend the culprit. Then complainant submitted the claim petition to OP to settle the claim for the IDV value of the vehicle. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant went in futile. Complainant actually availed the financial assistance to purchase the said vehicle from TVS finance OP.2. Complainant has made the payment of entire loan amount unfortunately he lost his vehicle. Hence he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs. Originally complainant filed the complaint only against OP.1 Oriental insurance company, later on impleaded OP.2 TVS finance and OP.3 the National Insurance Company.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP.1 filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP.1 there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint to the Police and sending information to the OP to settle the claim. Thus there is a violation of the policy conditions. The said vehicle was again got insured through OP.3 on 31.03.2008 by OP.2. If the theft had really occurred on 17.08.2007 OP.3 would not have covered the insurance on 31.03.2008. Hence there is a suppression of material fact by the complainant. In all probability complainant and OP.2 must have joined hands to get themselves enriched by claiming the insurance amount. Complaint is devoid of merits. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.1. OP.1 is justified in repudiating the claim. Among these grounds, OP.1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> OP.2 filed version mainly contending that the complainant has paid all the loan amount and the said loan has been closed on 10.10.2008. By way of precaution OP.2 got insured the said vehicle which was hypothecated to it through OP.3. There is nothing wrong committed by OP.2. The other allegations are baseless. OP.2 is not liable to pay any compensation as prayed. Hence OP.2 also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> OP.3 filed separate version contending that as per the request made by the OP.2 they have renewed the policy from 30.03.2008 to 29.03.2009. There is nothing wrong on their part. At no point of time either the complainant or OP.2 have ever intimated OP.2 regarding the so called theft of the vehicle on 17.08.2007. Under such circumstances OP.3 is also not liable to pay any compensation. Among these grounds, OP.3 also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP’s have also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant is the RC owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA-01-EE-3062 and OP.1 covered the insurance of the said vehicle which was valid from 30.03.2007 to 29.03.2008. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that when he parked his vehicle in front of his house some culprits have committed theft of the same on 17.08.2007. Hence he lodged the complaint to the Hanumanthanagar Police Station Bangalore that too on 04.09.2007. There is a delay of more than 17 days in lodging the complaint it is not satisfactorily explained by the complainant. During this delay much water might have been flown. The concerned police after the investigation submitted ‘C’ final report treating the case as undetectable. Thereafter complainant made a claim to OP on 16.05.2008 that is nearly after 9 months or so. For this delay also there is no satisfactory explanation.<br /> <br /> 7. It is further contended by the complainant that when his repeated requests and demands went in futile he felt deficiency in service on the part of OP.1. Of course the fact that complainant availed the loan from OP.2 for the purpose of purchase of the vehicle is not at dispute. It is specifically contended by OP.1 that there is some collusion between the financer OP.2 and the complainant. If the theft had occurred on 17.08.2007 there was no need for OP.2 to get the vehicle insured on 31.03.2008 through OP.3. Complainant took the said vehicle to Kerala and got it insured through OP.3 at Kerala. Here we find the malafide intention on the part of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 8. The insurance is always based on the good faith but here though complainant is aware of certain material facts suppressed to mention the same. We find there is a force in the contention of the OP.1 that there is some collusion between OP.2 and complainant. OP.2 admits that the complainant has discharged the entire loan amount on 10.10.2008. If really the theft had occurred on 17.08.2007 complainant must have intimated OP.2 the financer. Then what made the OP.2 to get the said vehicle insured through OP.3 that too at Kerala is not known. It appears complainant and OP.2 want to get themselves enriched in view of the so called insurance covered by OP.1. Their approach does not appear to be fair and honest.<br /> <br /> 9. OP.1 covered the insurance of the said vehicle which was valid from 30.03.2007 to 29.03.2008 and from 30.03.2008 to 29.03.2009. OP.3 covered the insurance of the said vehicle. To our understanding when insurance company take the risk of the insurance of a particular vehicle they will examine it, physically verify its presence then issue the policy. If OP.3 has issued the policy refereed to above at the behest of OP.2 that means to say as on the coverage of the insurance i.e., on 30.03.2008 the vehicle was very much there either in possession of the OP.2 or with the complainant the RC owner. When that is so, whole of the allegations of the complainant that theft has occurred on 17.08.2007 and the case remained undetected appears to be false.<br /> <br /> 10. When complainant is aware of the fact of covering of the insurance of the vehicle by OP.3 may be through OP.2 he would have intimated the concerned police about the said fact. So that concerned police would have investigated the matter thoroughly by contacting the OP.2 and OP.3 with regard to the existence of the vehicle. No such steps are taken. Again there is some kind of negligence on the part of the complainant. It is said he who seeks equity must do equity and must come with clean hands, but here in this case it is not so.<br /> <br /> 11. Viewed from any angle there arises reasonable doubt with regard to the theft of the vehicle on 17.08.2007. The remedy is still open to the complainant to approach the concerned police intimate them about subsequent developments with regard to the coverage of the insurance at the insistence of the OP.2 by OP.3 and get it resolved. There is a possibility of seizure of the vehicle as well as detection of the crime if complainant properly assist the police. The facts and circumstances are rather serious. There is a misleading by complainant and OP.2. When such an equally efficacious relief is readily available to the complainant we don’t think that complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.<br /> <br /> 12. In our view the repudiation made by the OP.1 appears to be just and proper. Though complainant impleded OP.2 and OP.3 at the later stage but he has not sought any relief against them nor made any specific allegations against them. This also leads us to draw an inference that there is some kind of hand-in glow between the complainant and other OP’s like OP.2 & OP.3. With these reasons we find complaint is devoid of merits. Hence complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 21st day of January 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />