Date of Filing : 06.07.2011
Date of Order : 25.02.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 25th FEBRUARY 2012
PRESENT
Sri. T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH …….. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA …….. MEMBER
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 159 / 2011
The Manager,
M/s. LANCO Infratech Ltd.,
Opp. to Sai Hero Honda Show Room
N.H. 4, Bye Pass Road, Kolar.
Now the Office has been shifted to:
Cheluvanahalli Village,
Arabhikottanur Post,
N.H. 4 Road,
Kolar Taluk.
(By Sri. A.S. Aravind Kumar, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.,
#186/7, Raghavendra Plaza, I Cross,
Wilson Garden, Hosur Main Road,
Bangalore – 560 027.
(By Sri. B. Kumar, Adv.) …… Opposite Party
ORDER
By Smt. K.G. SHANTALA, MEMBER
This Complaint is filed by the Complainant u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against OP to pay claim amount of Rs.4,36,000/- with accrued interest from the date of theft of vehicle and such other relief/s as would be deemed fit.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant Company has got its four wheeler Tata Sumo bearing Regn. No. KA-07/M-2231 and insured with OP Insurance Company vide Policy No. 00243347000100 dtd. 17.01.2009. On 21.03.2009 the said vehicle was parked near Dunlop Tyres Show Room near Film Theatre on NH4 Road, Hoskote Town at about 12 O’ clock. On the next day morning i.e., on 22.03.2009 at 6 O’ clock the driver of the Complainant Company found the vehicle missing (from the place where it was parked). The Complainant’s driver made a complaint with Hoskote Police Station on 22.03.2009 regarding theft. The Hoskote Police made investigation and on 21.04.2009 registered case in Cr. No. 186/2009 u/s. 379 of IPC. On 22.03.2009 itself the Complainant informed the theft of the said vehicle to the OP to its toll free No. 1800 345 8899. On 05.12.2009, the Police have submitted ‘C’ Report. The Complainant issued legal notice to OP on 16.06.2011 and finally filed this Complaint.
3. On being served with notice, the OP appeared through Counsel and filed version, affidavit & 9 documents. The OP admitted that insurance was in force at the time of incident and contended that there was negligence on the part of Complainant in not taking steps to safeguard the private Car from loss or damage i.e., violation of condition No. 4. The OP had rightly repudiated the Complainant’s claim. There was no deficiency of service on the part of OP and therefore the Complaint ought to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
4. On perusal of the Complaint and version averments, affidavits of both parties and the documents filed by both the parties, the points that arise for consideration are as under:
(1) Whether the Complainant proves that there is deficiency of service on the part of OP ?
(2) If so, to what relief/s the Complainant is entitled ?
5. Our finding on the above points are as under:
(1) Point No. 1 – Negative
(2) Point No. 2 – As per final order.
REASONS
6. The alleged theft of vehicle took place on 22.03.2009 and although the Complainant has averred in his Complaint that he intimated to OP on the same day to Toll Free No. 1800 345 8899, the Complainant has not produced Call Sheet details to prove this fact. From the documents filed by the Complainant such as FIR, Final Report, Claim Form, it is evident that the incident of theft occurred on 22.03.2009, but the claim form was submitted to OP on 15.04.2009. FIR was registered on 21.04.2009. The OP has denied the Complainant’s claim vide repudiation letter dtd. 27.01.2010. There is clear delay of 23 days in intimating the Insurance Company and one month delay in intimating the Police regarding the theft of the vehicle. Condition No. 1 of the Insurance Policy states that ““Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this Policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the Police and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender”. Also condition No. 4 of the Policy states that “The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the private car from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the Company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the private car or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured”. Ex. 7 & 8 prove that there was loss of one set of ignition key and the Complainant had utterly failed to safeguard the private car from impending loss. Complainant has relied on judgements of Chhattisgarh State Commission in II (2006) CPJ 276 between Devendra Kumar Choudhari & Oriental Insurance Co. and II 2006 CPJ 296 between Ganesh Ram Chandrakar & Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. On going through the above citations, the facts involved in the said cases are not similar to the present case on hand. OP to substantiate its case has relied on judgement of Hon’ble National Commission i.e., First Appeal No. 426/2004 between The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Shri Dharam Singh, First Appeal No. 321/2005 between New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Trilochan Jane and R.P. No. 1362/2011 between Bang Lal (deceased) through his Legal representatives Smt. Gyarsi Devi & others & the Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. OP has also relied on judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No. 169/2011 between Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s. Babu Reddy. In the said judgement of Hon’ble National Commission, it is held as follows:
In Davendra Singh’s case (Supra) delay of four days in reporting theft of the insured vehicle to the police and delay in reporting to the insurer of the theft after a gap of almost of a month was held in violation of condition of policy. In M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal’s case (Supra) the Supreme Court held that the terms of contract have to be read strictly. Applying the ratio of this decision in present case there is clear breach of afore-mentioned condition No. 1 of the policy on the part of respondent and appellant cannot be said to be deficient in service in not paying the claim under the policy”
The ratio of the above decision directly applies to the facts of the present case. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP. The OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the Complainant. Hence, this Point is held against the Complainant.
7. Point No. 2 – In view of the negative finding on Point No. 1, the question of consideration of Point No. 2 does not arise. Complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 25th day of February 2012.
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA T.RAJASHEKHARAIAH
Member Member President
SSS
