Karnataka

Bidar

CC/10/2016

Nagraj s/o Bhimsha Panchal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

M.Mallikarjun.

12 Jun 2017

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

AT BIDAR::

                                                                                                                 C.C.No. 10/2016

                                                                                                                                  Date of filing : 24/02/2016

                                                                                               Date of disposal : 12/06/2017

P R E S E N T:-                    (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                                       President.

                                                  (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                                 B.A.,LL.B.,

                                                                                           Member.

                                           

COMPLAINANT/S:      Nagraj, S/o Bhimsha Panchal,                          

                                         Age: major,  Occ: Business,

                                       R/o Hallikhed-K, Tq.Humnabad,

                                       Dist. Bidar.

           

                                                 (By Shri. M. Mallikarjun, Advocate)

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-           1.  The Divisional Manager,

                                               United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

                                              Division Office P.B. No. 47,

          Dr. Jawali complex, Super Market,

          Kalburgi.

 

    2.   The Branch Manager,

           United India Insurance Company Ltd.

            Branch Office, Bidar.

 

                                     3.    The Manager,

           Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.,

           Gulbarga.

 

                                            (O.P.No.1 & 2 By Shri. M.A.Khan, Advocate )

                                           ( O.P.No.3 By Shri. S. Wilson, Advocate )  

 

                               ::   J UD G M E N T  : :

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

                    This   complaint  filed by the above said complainant U/s.12 of the C.P.Act., 1986, against the O.Ps alleging  deficiency in service . The gist of the case is as under:

 

2.          The complainant is owner of Tavera vehicle bearing                     Reg.no.KA-34/M4245.  He got insured the vehicle with the O.Pno.2 vide policy No. 2406003113P105123083, which was valid from 14/11/2013 to 13/11/2014.  The complainant having availed the loan from Shriram finance  had purchased the said vehicle after executing the hypothecation agreement with the said finance.  The insurance policy being package policy covered all kinds of risks regarding damages caused to vehicle, theft of vehicle and other risks as evident from the said policy.  The complainant’s aver that on 28/04/2013 the vehicle of the complainant was stolen from the premises of the complainant, when the complainant had kept the said vehicle in the premises of his house situated at village Hallikhed-B Tq.Humnabad.  Thereafter the complainant on 30/04/2014 filed the complaint before the Police Chitguppa, Tq.Humnabad about the theft of said vehicle and accordingly the Police got registered the case in  Cr.No.54/2014 U/s. 379 IPC against the unknown culprits.    The Chitguppa  police made proper  investigation but when the Police  failed to trace the said vehicle and the thief/accused, the said police has filed ‘C’ final report before the JMFC Court Humnabad and  closed the investigation.  

3.                Further the complainant has approached the O.P. Insurance Company for the claim,  despite of submitting all documents pertaining to the vehicle, the O.P. Company has repudiated the claim made by the complainant on the ground  that the claim of the complainant was delayed and got closed the matter stating that “No Claim”.  Hence the complainant filed this Complaint before this Forum claiming the  assured policy amount and compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and litigation charges.

 

4.             After receipt of the Court’s notice the O.Ps have appeared before this Forum through their counsels and O.P.No.1 filed his written versions.   The O.P.no.1 stated in his written version that even though the complainant is the registered owner of insured vehicle, but since the said vehicle was financed by Shriram Finance under Hire Purchase Agreement, the said Shriram Finance Company becomes necessary party to this complaint and since the said Finance Company is not made party to the proceeding, the complaint is bad for non-joinder hence, the complaint is not maintainable.

 

5.           The O.P.no.1 admitted  the contents of para no.1 of the complaint to the effect that the complainant is the registered owner of the Tavera vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA 34-M-4245 and it was insured with O.P. Company covering the third party risk as well as theft and the O.P.no.1 has not disputed the lodging of the complaint by the complainant with the Chitguppa Police on 30/04/2015 at 1200.   The O.P. further avered that the statement of the complainant that immediately he  had lodged complaint with the police about the theft of his vehicle is false.  According to his own complaint on the early morning of 29/04/2015 at 5 a.m. when he woke up he noticed that, his vehicle was stolen from his house at Hallikhed-K, but he has not explained the reason why he made delay of about 30 hours in lodging the complaint with the Police, especially when the Police Station is just at a distance of 25 kms.  from his house.  Moreover, according to his complaint lodged with the Chitguppa Police, his vehicle was stolen from his house at Hallikhed-K but,  in his complaint filed before this Forum in para no.2 he has shown the place of theft took place at Hallikhed-B, which creates doubt in the story of the complainant.  The complainant is not definite about the place from where the vehicle has stolen.  Even otherwise also, if it is taken that his vehicle has stolen from his house at Hallikhed-K, and he came to know at 5 a.m. on 29/04/2015, he has not explained why he had failed to immediately lodge the complaint with the police and also inform the O.P. Company, so as to enable the police and the Insurance Company to alert their investigation agencies and prevent the stolen vehicle being taken away out of the jurisdiction.  It seems that, the complainant intentionally allowed the culprits to take his vehicle out of the jurisdiction and granted them time of about 30 hours, and thus he has failed to protect the interest of O.P. Insurance Company.  The conduct of the complainant in causing intentional delay in lodging the complaint with the police and giving immediate intimation of theft to the insurance company, shows that the complaint is not bonafide one and it is created and concocted, perhaps to cause intentional loss to the Insurance Company and also the finance Company.  If the complainant had given immediate intimation to the police and the Insurance Company, the police agency would have taken immediate steps by alerting their investigation team and informers and prevented the culprits from taking away successfully the stolen vehicle from their jurisdiction and the vehicle could have been traced.  This failure on the part of the complainant is clear violation of condition of the policy, which clearly says that in case of theft of the vehicle immediate intimation has to be given to the Insurance Company and the Police. 

 

6.                  The complainant has not whispered anything as to when he intimated the respondent company about the theft of his vehicle.  In fact, as per materials on record and pleading of the complainant himself, he noticed theft of his vehicle at 5 a.m. on 29/04/2015, and lodged compliant with the police at 12 noon on 30/04/2015, and thus there is long delay of 30 hours in lodging the complaint, giving sufficient time to the culprits to successfully drive away the vehicle out of the jurisdiction of the State.  Further, the complainant did not intimate the respondent company, and it is only on 06/05/2015, he has intimated about the theft of insured vehicle to the company, which is clearly in violation of the condition of the policy, which says that, in case of theft of insured vehicle, immediate intimation has to be given to the insurer.   Here since there is delay of more than 6 days in intimating the theft of the vehicle by the complainant his claim has been rightly and justified repudiated by the O.P. Company hence,  the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

 

 7.                The O.P.No.3 in his written statement stated that, the contents of para no.1 are declaratory, hence need no specific rebuttal.  The information given in the said para in respect of the make, registration number and policy details are true.  It is further true that, the complainant has availed the loan from the O.P.no.3 for the purchase of the said vehicle and it is still hypothecated with the O.P.No.3.  The rest of the contentions in respect of nature of the policy is declaratory and hence needs no specific rebuttal.  The O.P.no.3 is not aware of the contention of the complainant in para no.3 of the complaint that, the he

reported the said matter before the O.P.no.1 and 2 but they repudiated the claim as delayed claim, hence denied, the complainant be put to strict proof.  In fact being the borrower of the loan from the O.P.no.3, it was the duty of the complainant to inform about the alleged theft, but the complainant failed to perform his duty.  It is stated that, the O.P. repudiated the claim, but which O.P. is not clearly mentioned by the complainant so, the O.P.no.3 neither received any information about the alleged incident, nor any claim.  The non-receipt of claim is understandable, because this the O.P.no.3 is not the Insurance Company, hence the alleged claim could not have been sent to the office of the O.P.no.3.  The O.P.no.3 is not at all concerned with the alleged grievance of the complainant, but the complainant knowing this fact very well seems to have made this O.P.  a party to this litigation, only to escape from paying the probable EMIs of the vehicle, hence the complaint against the O.P is liable to be dismissed.  The O.P.no.3 prays to this Forum to consider its contention, and in the event of allowing the complaint, the amount towards the repayment of the loan amount by the complainant may be appropriated, out of the said claim amount.

  

 

8.         Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the following points arise for our consideration:-

 

 

1. Does the complainant prove that, there has been a deficiency of service in the part of the Opponents?

 

2. What order ?

 

 

 

9.           Our answers to the points stated above are as follows:-

 

               1.  Negative.

               2.  As per final orders due to the following:-

 

 

 

 

:: REASONS ::

10.                   In the case at hand, the main contending party, the Insurance Company does not deny the facts of the alleged theft, ownership and obtaining the Insurance cover by the complainant by paying due premium.  Its objection are on two main ground as to:-

 

            a)        Whether, as mentioned in the complaint, the vehicle was stolen from Hallikhed(B) village or Hallikhed (K) village, which are located at a distance of about 35Kms. from each other.  It canvases that, the complainant is not sure as to where the theft alleged took place.

 

            b)        Next, the Insurance raises a point vociferously that, the police complaint was filed after a gap of almost 30(thirty) hours and the O.P. was informed about the same after  lapse of about 8(eight) days on 06/05/2014.  The Insurance company canvasses, had the intimation been given to them at the earliest, so also to the police, efforts could have been made by the police and also by the Insurer to take steps of tracing the vehicle by employing investigators on its’ own.  We find mammoth substances in the canvassment of the O.P. Insurance company.  The incalcitrancy in the part of the complainant stinks of certain camouflaged ideas in the part of him.  Being a person professing the trade of motor mechanic, it cannot be inferred that, he is ignorant of the basic obligations of informing the insurer about theft of the vehicle in question with urgency.  Neither in the police complaint nor in the complaint before this forum, there is any plausible explanation about the delay in the part of the complainant and it would be unjustifiable in our part to offer plaudits to the misfeasance of him.  The delay of 30 hrs. of filing police complaint could have been endorsed, the village being far away from the jurisdictional P.S., but delay of days together in informing the Insurance Company in no manner looks appropriate and justifiable.  At the fag end on 09/06/2017, when the case was set down for orders, an I.A. was moved by the complainant to rectify the place of occurrence.  We have rejected the I.A. for the grounds mentioned in the order sheet.

 

11.                   The versions of the later added O.P.No.3, financier is more quizzical in nature.  Though it washes off its hands from any outcome of the case, demands that, if any compensation is awarded to the complainant,  the same should be forwarded to it.  We find little substance in the claim of the OP No.3.  This forum is not vested with the power to safeguard the entitlement of a financier.  It may agitate it’s right in a legal manner if so advised.  The O.P. Insurance Company has submitted case laws rendered by Hon’ble National Commission in 1(2016) CPJ 205 (N.C) National Insurance V/S Suresh Kumar (b) R.P.No.1964 of 2013 Ramprasad V/S Bajaj Allianz (c) R.P. No. 3549 of 2013 Ramesh Chandra V/s ICICI Lombard.  In all the decisions, the Hon’ble National Commission has deprecated the delay in filing police complaint and also information to Insurance companies and has been pleased to rule that, such act is of fundamental in nature and the insurers were justified in repudiating the claims.  No effort was ever made from the complainants’ side to counter the decisions stated supra and we are constrained to accept the ratios supra in totality.  Having come so far, we are convinced that, the present complaint is misconceived and illconceived in toto and hence, we proceed to pass the following:-

 

:: ORDER ::

 

   

1. The complaint is dismissed as not due.
2. There would be no order towards costs or otherwise.

 

 

             

 

( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 12^th  day of  June-2017 )

 

 

 

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

Member.                                                                    President.                                                                                        

 

 

 

 

 

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Ex.P.1- F.I.R. and complaint.   
2. Ex.P.2- Spot Mahazar.
3. Ex.P.3-Insurance certificate.
4. Ex.P.4-R.C.Book.
5. Ex.P.5-Driving Licence.
6. Ex.P.6-Voter I.D. Card of complainant.
7. Ex.P.7-Alienation map by Tahasildar, Bidar (Not relevant).
8. Ex.P.8-‘C’ report of Chitaguppa Police Station.
9. Ex.P.9- Repudiation letter date: 30.06.2015 by the Insurance         

             company.

10. Ex.P.10-Office copy of legal notice date: 04.08.2015.
11. Ex.P.11- Postal receipt of above.
12. Ex.P.12-Postal acknowledgement of above.
13. Ex.P.13- Reply to legal notice by Insurer date: 10.08.2015.

 

 

 

 

Documents produced by the Opponent/s

 

O.P.No.1 and 2 

 

•  Nil   -

 

 

O.P.No.3

 

1.  Ex.R.1- Certified copy of S.P.A.

2.   Ex.R.2-C.C. of loan cum hypothecation agreement between      

     M/S  Shree Birdev Finanve Pvt. Ltd. and the complainant.     

 
 

 

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

       Member.                                                                  President.

 

 

Sb.