Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/16/2019

Sri R.H.Thippeswamy, S/o Hanumaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Reliance Insurance Co.Ltd., has Represented by its Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.Parthalinga.R.N.

19 Jun 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON :01/01/2019

               DISPOSED ON:19/06/2019

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

 

CC. NO. 16/2019 DATED:19th JUNE 2019

 

PRESENT :-         SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH      :   PRESIDENT                                                     B.A., LL.B.,

SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,         :     LADY MEMBER

                             SRI. SHIVAKUMAR.K.N         :     MEMBER

                                      M.Com., LL.B.,

COMPLAINANT/S	R.H. Thippeswamy, S/o Hanumaiah, Owner of Tractor-Trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-16/TA-6274-6275, R/o Hochi Boraiah Badavane, Gonur Post, Chitradurga Taluk & District.   (Rep by Smt/Sri.Parthalinga. N, Advocate)
OPPOSITE PARTY	Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Manager, Branch Office, Opp: to Jagalur Mahalingappa Arcade, Near KSRTC Bus Stand, B.D. Road, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Smt/Sri.B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate)

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH: PRESIDENT

ORDER

The complainant has been filed this complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the OP to direct the OP to pay Rs.4,80,000/- towards own damage, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and to grant such other reliefs.

2.     Brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant is the RC owner of Tractor-Trailer bearing Registration No.KA-16 TA-6274-6275 which was purchased on 04.04.2013 and insured with the OP under Policy No.140621823430000814 valid for the period from 13.04.2018 to 12.04.2019 covering risk of own damage towards Tractor for Rs.4,00,000/- and Trailer for Rs.80,000/-.  It is further submitted that, on  09.05.2018 at about 10-00 AM, the same was stolen which was parked at complainant’s house.  Immediately, the complainant went to Turuvanur Police Station and given a complaint, but the Police intimated the complainant to search for the same.  Thereafter, the complainant searched, but the same did not trace out.  On 26.08.2018, the complainant has lodged a complaint before the same Police and the same was registered under Crime No.0114/2018.  Thereafter, the complainant also intimated to the OP orally on 10.05.2018.  The OP intimated the complainant to furnish the complaint copy and other documents.  Accordingly, the complainant obtained the documents from the concerned Police and submitted before the OP.  But the OP has sent the repudiation letter to the complainant stating that, the complainant has given intimation after a lapse of 120 days.  Again, the complainant issued legal notice to the OP, for that the OP has replied stating that the complainant has not intimated about theft of the vehicle within time, which is a deficiency of service.  The cause of action arose for this complaint is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and hence prayed for allow the complaint. 

 3.    After service of notice, one Sri. B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP and filed his version. 

According to the version filed by the OP, it is submitted that, the complainant is the RC owner of the Tractor-Trailer bearing Registration No.KA-16 TA-6274-6275 and the same was insured with the OP, the same was in force as on the date of incident.  But the contention of the OP is that, the complainant has given limited documents along with claim form on 06.09.2018 i.e., after a lapse of 120 days of theft of the vehicle and he has given complaint and lodged a FIR on 26.08.2018 i.e., 109 days delay, which is a violation of condition No.1 of the Policy terms and conditions.  The OP has written a letter through RPAD to the complainant intimating that, there is a delay in intimation of claim to the extent of 120 days from the date of theft of vehicle and also there is a delay of 109 days in giving complaint and also registering the FIR in the Police Station.  Since the theft of the vehicle was occurred on 09.05.2018 and the FIR lodged on 26.08.2018 and the same has intimated to the OP on 06.09.2018, it shows that the complainant is not diligent in intimating the occurrence of theft of the vehicle either to the OP Company or to the Police well in time.  Hence, it is violation of condition No.1 of the policy terms and conditions, therefore, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP on 30.10.2018 and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4. Complainant himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and relied on documents Ex A-1 to     A-4 and closed his side.  One Sri. Pradeep. D.S, the legal Claims Manager of OP Company examined as DW-1 and relied on Ex.B-1 to B-5 documents and closed their side.     

 

5. Heard the arguments.  

 

6.     Now the Points that arise for our consideration for the decision of the complaint are that:-

Point No.1:-Whether the complainant proves that, the OP has committed deficiency of service in settling the claim of the complainant?

 

Point No.2:-Whether the OP proves that, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy condition No.1 and entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint?

 

Point No.3:- What order?

 

       

7. Our findings on the above points are as follows.

 

        Point No.1 & 2:-Partly Affirmative.

        Point No.3:- As per the final order.

::REASONS::

 

8. Point No. 1:-It is not in dispute between the parties that, complainant is the RC owner of Tractor-Trailer bearing Registration No.KA-16 TA-6274-6275 and the same has been insured with the OP under Policy No.140621823430000814 which was in force for the period from 13.04.2018 to 12.04.2019.   On 09.05.2018, the same was stolen which was parked at complainant’s house.  After that, the complainant intimated about theft of the vehicle to the Turuvanur Police Station.  The said Police instructed the complainant to search for the same, if the same was not traced, they will a lodged a complaint.  Accordingly, the complainant searched the Tractor-Trailer.  Lastly, he did not trace out.  Finally, the complainant has lodged a complaint before the concerned Police on 26.08.2018, the same was registered under Crime No.0114/2018.  Before lodging a complaint, the complainant has intimated o the OP about theft of his Tractor-Trailer orally on 10.05.2018.  By that time, the OP told the complainant to come along with Police documents and vehicle documents.  Accordingly, the complainant submitted the concerned documents and FIR on 30.10.2018.  After receiving the entire records from the complainant, the OP has sent repudiation letter to the complainant stating that the complainant has not lodged a complaint before the Police or before the OP insurance company within time, which is a violation of condition No.1 of the terms and conditions of the policy.  Hence, the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

9. The Advocate for the complainant submitted that, the vehicle of the complainant was stolen on 09.05.2018.  Immediately, the complainant rushed to the concerned Police to lodge a complaint.  By that time, the concerned Police instructed the complainant to search for the Tractor-Trailer.  The complainant searched for the same, but the same did not trace out.  Thereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint and also on 10.05.2018, the complainant orally intimated the same to OP, but the OP instructed the complainant to come along with necessary documents.  Accordingly, the complainant has submitted necessary documents along with certified copy of the FIR on 30.10.2018.  There is a delay of 120 days that point has been raised by the OP and therefore, the same has been repudiated.  Further the complainant Advocate argued that, there is a recent guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, when there is a violation of policy terms and conditions and M.V Act, the OP has to settle the claim on non-standard basis.  Therefore, the OP company cannot repudiate the claim on the reason that, the complainant has not intimated about theft of the vehicle to the OP.  Therefore, the act and conduct of the OP is not proper.

10. The Advocate for the OP submits his arguments agreeing that, the vehicle of the complainant has been stolen on 09.05.2018, but he denied the other allegations of the complaint that, the complainant was not the lodged a complaint before the concerned Police or with the OP well in time.  The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy.  As per the principle of natural justice, if any person violated any terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance company has to settle the claim on non-standard basis and accordingly, in this case also, the OP has to settle the claim of the complainant on non-standard basis.  But the OP has repudiated to settle the claim of the complainant, which is a deficiency of service.  Therefore, we answer Point No.1 held as affirmative. 

11. Point No.2:- As explained supra, the OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the policy condition No.1.  It is true that, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy condition No.1, but there is a guideline of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, if the party has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, the company has to settle the claim on non-standard basis.  Here the case on hand, no doubt the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, even otherwise, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, the OP has to settle the claim on non-standard basis.  The complainant himself has admitted in his complaint that, he has violated the condition No.1 of the policy and prays for settlement of the claim on non-standard basis as per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.       

12. We have gone through the entire documents filed by both parties. There is no dispute that, the complainant is the RC owner of the Tractor-Trailer and the same was stolen.  After that, the complainant has intimated the same to the concerned Police, who instructed the complainant to search and then come and lodge a complaint.  The complainant also intimated to the OP company on 10.05.2018 orally.  By that time also, the OP has intimated the complainant to come along with necessary documents including the Police papers.  Accordingly, the complainant has submitted all the documents to the OP on 30.10.2018.  After receiving the documents, the OP told the complainant that, the complainant has not lodged a complaint before the Police and also the OP company well in time and there is a delay of 109 and 120 days respectively.  Hence, it is a violation of condition No.1 of the terms and condition of the policy.  No doubt the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and prays for awarding compensation on non-standard basis as per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.     So, in any angle, we find that, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP for not settling the claim of the complainant.    Accordingly, we answer Point No.2 held as affirmative. 

 

13.   Point No.3:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein, we pass the following:

 

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- to the complainant towards cost of the theft vehicle  along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from 09.05.2018 till realization.

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. 

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

(This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 19/06/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

 

 

 

 

 

                MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:-Complainant by filing affidavit evidence

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

DW-1:- Sri.Pradeep. D.S, the Legal Claims Manager of OP by filing affidavit evidence

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

 

01	Ex-A-1:-	FIR
02	Ex-A-2:-	Policy
03	Ex-A-3:-	RC
04	Ex-A-4:-	Adhar Card

Documents marked on behalf of OP:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Policy terms and conditions
02	Ex-B-2:-	Claim Form
03	Ex-B-3:-	Letter of Thippeswamy to NCRB
04	Ex.B-4:-	Repudiation letter dated 30.10.2018
05	Ex.B-5:-	Postal receipt

 

 

        MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

Rhr.,