Date of Filing:17.12.2008<br /> Date of Order:30.04.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2009<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2723 OF 2008<br /> <br /> M. Narayan<br /> S/o. Late Muniswamy Naidu<br /> The Proprietor<br /> M/s. Prabhu Engineering Works<br /> No. 425, 11th Cross, 4th Phase<br /> Peenya Industrial Area<br /> Bangalore 560 058 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> United India Insurance Co. Ltd.<br /> No. 109, SSI Area, Rajajinagar 5th Block<br /> Next to Dasashram and <br /> Opp. St. Ann’s High School<br /> Dr. Rajkumar Road<br /> Bangalore 560 010<br /> by its Branch Manager Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.<br /> The facts of the case are that complainant is owner of Maruthi Omni Van bearing Registration No. KA 02 MB 7029. Vehicle was insured with the opposite party. The effective date of policy was from 29.05.2006 to 28.05.2007. It is the case of the complainant that the vehicle was stolen on the intervening night of 01.11.2006 and 02.11.2006 from his residence. Complainant’s son immediately informed Srirampura Police Station regarding the theft of vehicle. Police conducted spot mahazar. Thereafter, complainant had informed same to the opposite party over telephone. The concerned officers of the opposite party advised the complainant to lodge police complaint in the jurisdictional police station. Vehicle was not traced. Complaint was lodged on 21.12.2006. Case was registered in Crime No. 427/2006 for an offence under Sec. 379 of I.P.C. On 22.12.2006 son of complainant Prabhu informed the opposite party about lodging of police complaint. Police submitted ‘C’ report to the VII ACMM, Bangalore. Complainant submitted all necessary papers to opposite party for processing of claim. Legal notice issued to opposite party to settle the claim. Hence, the complaint.<br /> 2. Notice issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance through advocate. Defence version filed stating that the complainant has written letter to opposite party intimating theft of the vehicle on 22.12.2006 after lapse of 50 days from the date of incident. Opposite party has repudiated the claim on the ground that as per policy conditions notice shall be given to the insurer immediately upon the occurrence of loss or damage to the vehicle, failing which claim will not be processed. FIR was also lodged after lapse of 49 days. The reasons for delay are not satisfactory. Hence, claim of the complainant was repudiated by letter dated 01.02.2007.<br /> 3. Affidavit Evidences are filed. <br /> 4. Arguments are heard. <br /> 5. The points for consideration are:<br /> “1. Whether repudiation of the claim by opposite party is justified?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the declared value of the vehicle from the opposite party?”<br /> 6. Almost all facts are admitted. There is no dispute that the complainant had insured his vehicle with the opposite party on payment of premium amount of Rs. 3,252/-. The period of insurance was from 29.05.2006 to 28.05.2007. Copy of policy is produced. The declared value of vehicle is Rs. 1,19,000/-. The complainant has produced copy of complaint given to the police. Complaint has been lodged on 21.12.2006 to the police. Copy of FIR has been produced. Copy of ‘C’ report submitted by police has been produced. The complainant has produced letter addressed to opposite party dated 11.01.2007. The said letter has been acknowledged by opposite party on 12.01.2007 by putting seal. In the said letter the complainant has submitted that he has been out of station on the ground that his family member was admitted in AVS hospital in Kottekal, Kerala State. Therefore, he had not informed the opposite party company about the theft of vehicle at the earliest date. No doubt the theft had taken place on 01.11.2006. The police complaint had been lodged on 21.12.2006 i.e. after more than 49 days of the occurrence. The complainant had informed the opposite party thereafter on 11.01.2007. There is delay of more than 70 days to inform the opposite party about the incident. As per the policy condition the complainant should have given intimation to the opposite party immediately upon occurrence of loss or damage to the vehicle. The term ‘immediately’ mentioned in the policy condition has not been defined any where. The complainant submitted that there was delay in informing the incident to the opposite party on the ground that one of his family member was admitted to hospital in Kerala State for treatment and he was out of station. Therefore, there is delay in informing the matter to the opposite party. However, it has been argued by the learned advocate for complainant that the matter was informed to the opposite party over telephone on the next day of theft. The learned advocate also submitted that complainant’s son Prabhu immediately informed the police regarding theft of the vehicle. But there is delay in filing formal complaint to the opposite party. The opposite party could have condoned the delay in informing the matter and processing the claim. Since, there is no definition or specific dates are not mentioned as to when the matter should be informed of the theft, word ‘immediately’ may be interpreted depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Discretion is given to the opposite party company to admit the claim taking into consideration of the explanation and reasons furnished by the complainant. The complainant submitted that he was out of station and he had been to Kerala State since one of the family member was admitted to the hospital for treatment and he had gone to Kerala to lookafter the ailing member of the family. Therefore, there was some delay in filing complaint in writing to the opposite party company. Since almost all the facts are the admitted only point to repudiate the claim is that the complainant failed to inform the occurrence to the opposite party company immediately. As stated above since there is no definition of the word ‘immediately’ the said term can be liberally interpreted in favour of the consumer. If two opinions are possible in a given situation an opinion which is favourable to the consumer shall have to be given effect and benefits should be given to the consumer rather than to the opposite party. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interests of the consumers. An interpretation which is favourable to the consumer requires to be given for doing justice to the consumer. Therefore, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case it would be just, fair and reasonable to direct the opposite party company to pay Rs. 1,19,000/- Declared value of the vehicle to the complainant.<br /> ORDER<br /> 7. The Complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 1,19,000/- (IDV) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order within 30 days the above amount carries interest at 10% p.a. from the date of this order till payment / realization.<br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />