BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
Present : Sri P.V. Subrahmanyam, B.A.B.L., President
Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member
Sri G. Sreenivas Rao, MSc., B.Ed., L.L.B., PGADR (NALSAR)
Male Member
Monday, the 2nd day of May, 2011
CC. No. 43/2010
Between:
B. Venkat Swamy S/o Ramaiah,
Age: 50 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Kondapaka Medak District. ... Complainant
And
1. Manager Reliance,
General Insurance company Limited,
II floor Kyass Towers,
Court chowrasta Karimnagar.
2. Manager Reliance Insurance company Limited,
R/o Flat No. 2337, 4th Floor, Sagar Plaza,
Above Vishal Super Market,
Abids Road, Hyderabad. ... Opposite parties
This case came up for final hearing before us on 20.04.2011 in the present of Sri Fareed Khan, Advocate for complainant and Sri J. Ram Raddy, Advocate for opposite parties, on perused the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
(Per Sri P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)
Complaint filed U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 1,18,800/- to the complainant towards the missed vehicle of the complainant which was committed theft ie. auto riksha bearing No. AP 23 U 9187 having chasis No. fkg709297 and E. No. W8G0073845.
1. The averments in the complaint are that the complainant has an auto riksha bearing No. AP 23 U 9187. It has permit to ply within a radius of 60 km from the owner's residence and the permission granted by the transport department expires by 13.08.2013. The vehicle has valid insurance for Rs. 1,18,800/-. It was committed theft at Hyderabad when his driver went to Hyderabad on a trip from Siddipet. Hence the complaint.
2. The claim of complainant is resisted by the opposite parties by filing a counter to the following effect:
Office of opposite party No. 1 is situated at Karimnagar and that of opposite party No. 2 is at Hyderabad as such complaint is not maintainable in this forum for want of jurisdiction. It is not mentioned any where in the complaint that there is deficiency of service by the insurance company as such the complaint is not maintainable against the opposite parties. As per the FIR, which is filed along with the complaint, one T. Srinivas S/o Kistaiah gave complaint to Neredmet Police stating that his auto was given for hire to one Upender and the said Upender kept the auto at Kakatiyanagar but in the next day morning he found it missing therefore the said T. Srinivas gave complaint to Neredmet Police on 19.11.2009. As per that complaint T. Srinivas S/o Kistaiah resident of Bhabathsingh Nagar, Neredmet is owner of the auto. The auto was not committed theft as stated in the complaint. Particulars of theft, loss caused to the complainant and steps taken by him to persue the matter are not disclosed in the complaint. The complaint is vague.
3. As per the terms and condition of the policy 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 has to give all such information and assistantance as the company shall require. Letter, Claim, Writ summons and / or process or copy there of shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under the policy, the insured shall give a notice to the police and co-operate with the company in securing conviction to the offender. As per the complaint given to the police the alleged theft was caused in the intervening night of 22/23 -9-2009 and it is clear that one T. Srinivas gave complaint to police on 19.11.2009 and no complaint is given by the insured to the police. As per the claim procedure insured has to submit the claim form with all details in respect of theft of vehicle etc. The complainant has not given immediate notice to the company and report to police with required documents to settle the matter and thereby the complainant violated terms and condition of the policy and hence not entitled to any compensation from the opposite parties as claimed in the complainant. The complaint may therefore be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to prove the averments in the pleadings both parties filed their respective evidence affidavits. Exs. A1 to A6 are marked on behalf of the complainant. No documents are marked for the opposite parties. Written arguments are filed for both parties. Both sides advocates requested to treat the written arguments as oral arguments. Perused the record.
5. The points for consideration are 1) whether the complainant has proved that he is owner of the auto riksha bearing No. AP 23 U 9187, ii) that it was committed theft at Hyderabad when the complainant's driver has taken it on a trip to Hyderabad and iii) whether he is entitled for compensation as prayed for?
Point (i):
6. It is the case of the complainant that he is owner of the auto riksha bearing No. AP 23 U 9187 and that transport department granted permission to ply the vehicle within a radius of 60 km from the residence of the complainant at Siddipet. To prove the ownership of the vehicle certificate of registration issued by the transport department at Siddipet is marked as Ex.A2. Ex.A3 is permit issued by the transport department Siddipet in respect of the above mentioned auto to ply within a radius of 60 km from the residence of the owner (the complainant). Ex.A1 is certificate of fitness issued by transport department, Siddipet and it expires on 12.08.2010. Ex.A4 which is cover note issued by the opposite parties also shows the complainant is the owner of the vehicle. Therefore in view of the complainant averments and contents of the Ex.A1 to A4 it is proved that the complainant is the registered owner of auto riksha bearing No. Ap 23 U 9187. The point is decided in favour of the complainant.
Point (ii) & (iii):
7. It is the contention of the complainant that his driver took the auto to Hyderabad on a trip and it was stolen at Hyderabad. The complaint is very vegue on this aspect. The complainant has not stated either the name of his driver or on what date he has taken the auto to Hyderabad and on what date it was stolen and what steps were taken by the driver immediately after he found the vehicle missing in the following morning etc. The complainant has not even filed evidence affidavit of the said driver in support of his contentions. In this connection the documents marked on behalf the complainant are Exs. A5 and A6. Ex. A5 is driving licence of one Srinivas Thunga of Warrangal. Ex.A6 is xerox copies of FIR together with complaint of T. Srinivas and his learning driving licence. Even though the complainant stated in the complaint that he is owner of the auto bearing No. AP 23 U 9187, the report given by T. Srinivas to Neredmet Police shows that his auto riksha bearing No. 23 U 9187 was being run by him for the past one year in Neredmet and on 22.09.2009 he gave it to one Upender who is known to him and the said Upender kept the auto at his house in Kakatiya Nagar but in the following morning he telephoned to the said srinivas that the auto was found missing and hence that report was being given. Therefore even though Exs. A1 to A4 go to show that the complainant is registered owner of the auto riksha bearing No. AP 23 U 9187, T. Srinivas appears to have purchased the vehicle of the complainant without getting the owner ship transferred in his name; because in his report to Neredmet Police he claimed to be owner of the said auto. It is not stated by the said T. Srinivas in his report to Neredmet Police that he is the driver of the complaint herein. Moreover even though it is stated in the report to Neredment police that auto was committed theft in intervening night of 22/23 - 9- 2009 report to police was given on 19.11.2009 at 4:00 p.m. i.e. nearly two months after the alleged theft of the vehicle. The circumstances evoke suspicion in the bonafides of the contentions of the complainant, both regarding the ownership and the alleged theft. Even Ex.A6 FIR shows that police has registered the case on 19.11.2009 i.e. nearly one year five months back. The complainant has not taken any steps to produce the result of police investigation. It is not known whether police have found the allegation of theft mentioned in the report of T. Srinivas is well founded
or ill founded. It is not the case of the complainant that immediately after his coming to know of the theft of the auto on 23.09.2009 he has informed the opposite parties about the alleged theft either orally or in writing. The complaint has not denied the contention of the opposite parties that they were not informed of the theft. It is not the case of the complainant that he made a claim to the opposite parties for payment of insurance amount and that they failed to pay. When the opposite parties were not at all informed about the theft and when no claim was made to them there is no question of either negligence or deficiency in service attracting the provisions of Consumer Protection Act entitling the complainant to claim any compensation. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove satisfactorily either the alleged theft of the auto or any negligence / deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. For the reasons stated supra it is held that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. points No.(ii) and (iii) are decided against the complainant.
8. In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 2nd day of May, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
For complainant: For Opposite parties:
- Nil- -Nil-
EXHIBITS MARKED
For complainant: For Opposite parties:
Ex.A1/dt. 13.08.2008 - Certificate of fitness issued by -Nil-
Transport department.
Ex.A2/dt.12.08.2008 - Certificate of registration.
Ex.A3/dt.14.08.2008 - Permit issued by transport department.
Ex.A4/dt.21.09.2004 - Cover note of Reliance general insurance.
Ex.A5/dt.14.08.2008 - Driving licence.
Ex.A6/dt.19.11.2009 - Xerox copy of FIR.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Copy to Copy delivered to the Complainant/
1) The complainant Opp.Parties On _______
2) The Opp.Parties
3) Spare copy Dis.No. /2011, dt.
