<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 27.06.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 30th AUGUST 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1427/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.A.S.Narayanan,522, Guru Krupa,8th Main, 2nd Cross,NGEF Layout,Sadanandanagar,Bangalore – 560038.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY United India Insurance Co Ltd.,IX Mitra Towers,10/4 Kasturba Road,Bangalore – 560001.Advocate – Sri.S.Puttanna<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.53,723/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant took the insurance policy with regard to his baggages, which was valid from 06.09.2006 to 05.09.2007. On 03.11.2006 he undertook the journey from Bangalore to Chennai by Train No.6221 Mysore – Cauveri Express. While boarding the said Train he carried the luggage. When the Train was to reach the Chennai Central he noticed that his baggage was missing which was containing the valuable clothes, electronic goods, spectacles etc., of worth Rs.53,723/-. He immediately lodged the complaint to the concerned Police, they are unable to detect the culprit and trace out the luggage lost by him. As the theft occurred within the insurance coverage complainant made claim to OP to settle the loss suffered by him. But unfortunately OP to the reasons known to it came forward to settle the claim only for Rs.6,738/- as against Rs.53,723/-. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to OP to pay the actual loss suffered by him went in futile. Thus he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP under the said policy the liability of it if any is to the extent of sum insured Rs.25,000/- and not more than that. It is further contended that complainant has not disclosed the contents of the baggage which he carried along with him while undertaking the said journey. So there is no proof that complainant had ever kept mobile worth of Rs.16,000/-, camera of Rs.8,000/-, spectacles worth of Rs.10,000/- etc. Under such circumstances claim of the complainant is highly imaginary. As the complainant disclosed that he lost cloth worth Rs.10,875/-. OP considering the loss suffered by the complainant allowed 50% of the usage of the clothes there by came forward to pay Rs.6,738/-. All the efforts made by the OP to settle the claim went in futile because complainant didn’t accept the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant has taken the household insurance policy including that of baggage from OP, which was valid for the period from 06.09.2006 to 05.09.2007. OP having accepted the necessary premium paid by the complainant issued the said policy. It is contended by the complainant that on 03.11.2006 he undertook the journey from Bangalore to Chennai by Train No.6221 Mysore – Cauveri Express. When the said train reached the Chennai Central he noticed that the baggage which he carried along with him on that day was found missing. Immediately he lodged complaint to the railway police at Chennai on 04.11.2006 but the concerned police are unable to detect the culprit and trace out his missing baggage. Hence complainant made claim to OP to pay the compensation with regard to the loss of the contents of the said luggage namely the Nokia mobile, Samsung Camera, spectacles, cash, clothes in all worth of Rs.53,723/-. Complainant has produced the insurance policy copy, claim made to the OP and the correspondence made with the OP.<br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that under the said policy the liability of the OP if any is to the extent of only Rs.25,000/- the sum assured. Further it is contended by the OP that complainant has not produced any documents to show that he has kept mobile in the said baggage worth Rs.16,000/- and Samsung camera worth Rs.8,000/-, spectacles worth Rs.10,000/- except mentioning the same in his claim petition. OP has taken up a contention that as the complainant disclosed the value of the clothes lost as Rs.10,875/- they have settled the claim by allowing 50% of the total cost of the clothes in view of the usage of the same and sent a cheque for Rs.6,738/- towards full and final settlement of the claim, but complainant refused to accept the same.<br /> <br /> 8. Of course on going through the records basically there is no proof that complainant carried the said valuable goods on that day and kept them in the said luggage. The complaint given by the complainant to the police speaks about the loss of property as Nokia mobile, spectacles, cash, driving licence, credit cards, clothes etc., totally valued Rs.30,000/-. This can be seen from the property form drawn by Chennai Railway Police who received the complaint of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 9. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove that he undertook the journey as contended along with baggage on that day. So bearing these facts in mind though complainant has not established the total cost of the property lost by him is Rs.53,723/- when there is a proof of the theft of the said luggage OP would have settled the claim at least to the tune of Rs.25,000/- as per the coverage made by them with regard to the baggage. Unfortunately no such steps are taken by the OP. On the other hand they intended to settle the claim only to the tune of Rs.6,000/- and odd. Here we find the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 10. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. As against the unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under such circumstances he is entitled for certain relief. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to settle the claim for Rs.25,000/- and pay the same to the complainant together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from 04.11.2006 till realization and also pay a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 30th day of August 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Vln* <br />