Date of Filing:01/12/2016

Date of Order:18/09/2018

BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE -  27.

Dated:18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018

PRESENT

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B. Rtd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT

SRI D.SURESH, B.Com., LL.B., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.1578/2016

Vs

ORDER

BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT:

1.     This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant U/S Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite Party (herein referred in short as O.P) alleging the deficiency in service in not paying the value of the stolen vehicle and for reimbursement of Rs.6,36,660/- being the value of the insured vehicle, Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation, Rs.50,000/- towards litigations expenses and Rs.71,624.25 towards interest at 15% per annum from the date of the police filing ‘C’ report and other reliefs as this Forum deems fit.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that, complainant is running a travel service. He is owning a tempo traveller bearing No. KA-04-D-5667. The same was  insured with the O.p and its validity was from 25.02.2015 to 24.02.2016.  The said vehicle was provided to DENSO KIRLOSKAR Industries Pvt. Ltd for its travel requirement. On 18.07.2016 at about 24 hours, the driver of the vehicle had parked the same at his house in Peenya I Stage behind METRO station and in the morning he found the vehicle missing and he filed a complaint to the police who registered the FIR. One Sathisha Babu on behalf of complainant was authorized to report the theft and on 14.08.2015 intimation was given to the O.P signed by one of its partner on 14.8.2015 making the claim. The police inspite of best efforts could not recover the vehicle. They filed a ‘C’ report. The same was  given to O.P and when enquired regarding the delay in settling the claim, on 3.9.2015 O.P has repudiated the claim on frivolous grounds stating that the policy terms have not been adhered to which is illegal, and unfair trade practice. Inspite of his request letter to  reconsider the same, O.p has not heeded to his request and hence the complaint.

3.     Upon  the service of notice, O.P appeared before the Forum and filed his version admitting the insurance of the vehicle with it and contended that the complaint is misconceived, not maintainable either in law or on fact.  It was informed on 28.8.2015 regarding the theft of vehicle without submitting the claim form.  After registering the claim, they processed and found that the complainant did not intimate it with regard to the theft of the vehicle immediately. The same was intimated to it after lapse of 30 days and hence the opportunity of investigating the theft is lost and hence they repudiated the claim of the complainant on 03.09.2015 on the ground that it was delayed communication.  As per the averments, the police registered a case whereas neither the driver nor the owner of the vehicle lodged police complaint immediately.  The complainant caused delay in intimating the theft to it and to the police which is violation of the condition of the policy which prescribes that insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender.  Since the complainant failed to intimate the theft of the vehicle, the claim could not be settled and same was repudiated and hence there is no deficiency in service on its part, and hence, there is no cause of action for the complaint. This Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint and hence OP prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost.

4. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant examined himself as PW-1 and produced documents and also O.P examined as RW-1 and produced the documents. Heard the arguments. The following points arise for our consideration:-

                   (1)   Whether the complainant has proved the

       deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?

(2)  Whether the complainant is entitled to

      the relief prayed for in the complaint?

5.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT 1: In the affirmative.

POINT 2: In the partly affirmative.

                for the following:

REASONS

POINT No.1:-

6.     On perusal of the pleadings of the complaint, version evidence and documents of both the parties, it becomes clear the complainant is the owner of vehicle bearing No. KA-04-D-5667 which has been insured with O.P as per the copy of the Registration Certificate, Copy of the Form No.49 of M.V. Act, and as per the insurance policy and certificate produced.  As per the averments and as per the F.I.R and the complaint, it becomes clear that the said vehicle was stolen on the intervening night of 18 and 19^th July 2015 and the same was intimated to the Peenya Police on 20.07.2015 at 15.15 hours (3.15 P.M.) . Upon the FIR being registered, the police after investigation have filed report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. stating that accused and vehicle  could not be traced.  On 14.08.2015 a letter has been written by complainant to O.P intimating the theft and making the claim requesting them to initiate the claim process.   On 03.09.2015 O.P has taken decision and repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that it is violative of condition No.1 of the policy stating that in case of theft or other criminal act, which may be the subject of claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender and further claimed that there is a delay in reporting the matter to the police (theft on the night of 18/19^th July 2015 and reporting to the police on 20.07.2015 and to them on 14.08.2015) regarding the theft of the complainant’s vehicle. 

7.     The counsel for the complainant had relied on a decision reported in 2017 (12) SC 198 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal 15611/2017 dated 04.10.2017 between Om prakash Vs Reliance General Insurance and prayed the Forum to apply the ratio laid down in the said decision and allow the complaint and order for the reimbursement of the value of the vehicle as claimed. It is held in the said appeal that :

“(i) It is common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straight away go to the insurance company to claim compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. It is also necessary to state here that it would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified and found to be correct by the Investigator. The condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance  claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. The Consumer Protection act aims at providing better protection of the interest of consumers. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction. The Appellant gave cogent reasons for the delay of 8 days in informing the Respondent about the incident. The investigator had verified the theft to be genuine and the payment towards the claim was approved by the Corporate Claims Manager, which was just and proper. The National Commission was not justified in rejecting the claim of the Appellant without considering the explanation for the delay. The appellant was entitled for the compensation.

8.     As per the condition reiterated above, it is the duty of the complainant to immediately intimate the police authority regarding the theft and cooperate with the O.P to secure conviction to the accused.  In this case, as stated above, the theft has taken place on the intervening night of 18/19^th July 2015 and the complaint was lodged at 3.15 p.m 20.07.2015. This cannot be held as inordinate delay in reporting the same to the police.  Hence the repudiation of the claim of the complainant is illegal as held in the decision relied above.  The rejection of the claim is not proper, legal and not reasonable and it is also not fair. The condition regarding the delay shall not a shelter to repudiate the insurance claim which has been otherwise found to be genuine. In this case, the O.P has not made any allegation regarding the genuineness, reasonableness, and fairness of the claim of the complainant in repudiating the claim. Whereas, its only contention is delay in reporting the matter to the police and to the insurance company. In view of this, we are of the opinion that the repudiation of the claim is illegal, unfair  which amounts to deficiency in service and hold Point No.1 in the Affirmative.

POINT No.2:

9.     The complainant has sought the value of the vehicle which was stolen on 18/19^th July 2015. The  insured value of the vehicle is Rs.6,36,660/- and the same was stolen during the policy period. Hence the complainant is entitled for the above said claim along with interest at 12% per annum from 14.08.2015. Since we have held that the repudiation is illegal and not fair, O.P is bound to compensate the complainant for his mental and physical sufferance and financial loss. There is no concrete evidence to quantify the same to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- as claimed in the complaint.  And further there is no documentary evidence produced by the complainant for having spent Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses. Since we have already ordered for interest at 12% per annum on the IDV of the vehicle, the complainant is not entitle for Rs.71,624.25 as interest on the said amount. We are of the opinion that if a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the damages and Rs.5,000/- towards litigations expenses if awarded in favour of the complainant, would meet the ends of justice. Hence we answer Point No.2 Partly in the Affirmative and pass the following:

ORDER

1. The Complaint is hereby allowed in part with cost.
2. O.P i.e. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Represented by its regional Manager/authorized signatory is hereby direct to pay a sum of Rs.6,36,660/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 14.08.2015 till date of full payment to the complainant.
3. Further O.P is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages and Rs.5,000/- towards  cost of the litigation expenses.
4. The O.P is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 15 days thereafter.
5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 18^th Day of SEPTEMBER 2018)

MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Annexure.1: Copy of Registration Certificate and permit.

Annexure.2: Copy of Insurance policy.

Annexure.3: Copy of Police FIR.

Annexure.4: Copy of Authorisation Letter.

Annexure 5: Copy of Compliance Letter.

Annexure.6: Copy of Intimation Letter .

Annexure.7: Copy of C Report.

Annexure.8: Copy of Letter from Insurance company.

Annexure 9: Copy of letter to O.P from complainant.

Annexure 10: Copy of postal acknowledgement and receipt.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: – Sri M.Muniraja, Divisional Manager of O.P.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Doc.No.1: True copy of the policy issued by O.P to the complainant.

Doc.No.2: Copy of letter of repudiation dated.3.9.2015.

Doc.No.3: Postal acknowledgment..

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

*RAK