Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/467/2015

A.Irudayaraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

N Vijayaraghavan

12 Dec 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 13.10.2015

                                                                          Date of Order : 12.12.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP., : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.467/2015

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018

                                 

A. Irudayaraj,

S/o. Mr. Arokiasamy,

Old No.12/2, New No.38/2,

Periyapalli Street,

Mandavelipakkam,

Chennai – 600 028.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                    

 

      ..Versus..

 

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Branch Manager,

Luz Branch Office:012502,

“Temple Square Complex”,

No.82, North Mada Street,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.                                                 ..  Opposite party.

          

Counsel for complainant      :  M/s. S. Natarajan

Counsel for opposite party  :  M/s. N. Vijayaraghavan

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay Rs.52,971.38/- being the cost of Dell laptop and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony and pain with cost of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that on 05.02.2011, as per the sanction order of The Assistant Director of Co-operative Audit purchased a new laptop for a sum of Rs.52,971.38/- as per invoice dated:12.01.2012.  At the time of purchase, the said laptop was duly insured with the opposite party  vide policy No.0125021112502/48/13/01/00001304 for the period from 10.02.2014 to 09.02.2015 and continuously renewed periodically paying annual premium of Rs.1,787/-. The complainant submits that on 03.12.2014, when the complainant reaching R.K. Mutt Road keeping his two wheeler securing his laptop with lock went to his office in the 3^rd Floor of THSCB Building, while returning back from the office for his utter shock and dismay, the laptop duly secured with lock was found missing.  Immediately, the complainant informed the fact of theft to the opposite party and in turn lodged a police complaint dated:03.12.2014.  The police also registered the complaint under CSR No.1796/2014.  The complainant submits that on 17.12.2014, the complainant submitted a letter claiming for due indemnification.   But to his shock and surprise on 11.05.2015, the opposite party repudiated the claim stating that “you have allowed the laptop unattended by leaving it hanging in the two wheeler.  Hence, due care has not been taken by you in protecting the property insured.  We therefore, repudiate the claim under conditions No.6 & 11 of the All Risk policy and no claim is payable under the policy”.  The complainant submits that the alleged exclusion condition Nos.6 & 11 applied for repudiation by the opposite party has no connection with the clear case of theft of laptop of the computer.  The act of the opposite party caused great mental agony.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same. The opposite party states that the complainant availed All Risk Policy of Insurance No.012502/48/13/01/0001304 for the period from 10.02.2014 to 09.02.2015.  The complainant made a claim with the opposite party on 17.12.2014 in respect of theft of his laptop which according to the complainant was stolen from his motorbike.  The opposite party states that the allegation of theft and the claim of the cost of laptop was duly scrutinized after due appointment of an investigator and his report.   The Investigation Report reveals that according to the version of the complainant about the description of the incident of theft, the complainant had left the laptop unattended by leaving it handing in his bike, which amounts to gross negligence and neglect on the part of the insured in taking utmost care of the laptop insured with the opposite party.  Accordingly as per clause 6 & 11 the opposite party rightly repudiated the claim.   The opposite party states that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and imaginary.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.    To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 are marked on the side of the opposite party. 

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.52,971.38/- the cost of Dell Laptop as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony and pain with cost of Rs.15,000/- as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the opposite party’s Counsel also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that on 05.02.2011, as per the sanction order Ex.A1 of  The Assistant Director of Co-operative Audit purchased a new laptop for a sum of Rs.52,971.38/- vide invoice dated:12.01.2012 Ex.A2.  At the time of purchase, the said laptop was duly insured with the opposite party  vide policy No.0125021112502/48/13/01/00001304 as per Ex.A3 for the period from 10.02.2014 to 09.02.2015 and continuously renewed periodically paying annual premium of Rs.1,787/- is not denied by the opposite party.  Further the contention of the complainant is that on 03.12.2014, when the complainant reaching R.K. Mutt Road keeping his two wheeler securing his laptop with lock went to his office in the 3^rd Floor of THSCB Building, while returning back from the office for his utter shock and dismay, the laptop duly secured with lock was found missing.  Immediately, the complainant informed the fact of theft to the opposite party and in turn lodged a police complaint dated:03.12.2014 as per Ex.A4.  The police also registered the complaint under CSR No.1796/2014 as per Ex.A5. 

6.     Further the complainant contended that on 17.12.2014, the complainant submitted a letter claiming for due indemnification.   But to his shock and surprise on 11.05.2015, the opposite party repudiated the claim as per Ex.A6 stating that “you have allowed the laptop unattended by leaving it hanging in the two wheeler.  Hence, due care has not been taken by you in protecting the property insured”.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.B2, Surveyor report it reads as follows:  “It could be seen that as per the description of the incident by the insured, he had left the laptop unattended by leaving it hanging in his bike, which falls under the exclusion No.6 and No.11 of the policy, resulting in the above loss” proves the report itself is self serving one because the Surveyor has not collected any statement or report from the public or reputable persons of the locality to prove his report.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the alleged exclusion condition Nos.6 & 11 applied for repudiation by the opposite party has no connection with the clear case of theft of laptop of the computer which was secured in the motor cycle with lock.  The opposite party has not denied specifically that the complainant kept the laptop with lock in the motor cycle.  The complainant is claiming the actual cost of the laptop with compensation for such deficiency in service.

7.     The learned Counsel for the opposite party would contend that admittedly the complainant availed all risk policy of insurance for the period from 10.02.2014 to 09.02.2015 as per Ex.B2.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the allegation of theft and the claim of the cost of laptop was duly scrutinized after due appointment of an investigator and his report.  Since the complainant left the laptop unattended, leaving it in hanging position it amounts to gross negligence.  Accordingly as per clause 6 & 11 the opposite party rightly repudiated the claim.  But the opposite party has not disputed or denied that the complainant left the laptop with lock and key in such a manner of safety. 

8.     The learned Counsel for the opposite party cited the decision reported in:

1999 (6) SCC 451

Between

Sony Cherian

-Versus-

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Held that

“The insurance policy between the insurer and the insured represents a contract between the parties.  Since the insurer undertakes to compensate the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the insurance policy, the terms of the agreement have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer.  The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy.  That being so, the insured has also to act strictly in accordance with the statutory limitations or terms of the policy expressly set out therein”.

 But in this case the complainant kept his laptop in the two wheeler in such safety manner of lock and key.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and imaginary.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.52,971/- being the cost of Dell laptop with a compensation of Rs.15,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.

  In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.52,971/- (Rupees Fifty two thousand nine hundred and seventy one only) being the cost of Dell Laptop and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards compensation of damages for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 12^th day of December 2018. 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

		Copy of sanction
		Copy of invoice
		Copy of policy with annexures
		Copy of complainant’s letter
		Copy of CSR
		Copy of the opposite party’s letter

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.B1		All Risk Insurance Policy with terms and conditions
Ex.B2	10.01.2015	Copy of Investigation Report
Ex.B3	11.05.2015	Copy of Repudiation letter

 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT