Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/921/2018

Sri Narasimhaiah B.R, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Universal Sompo General Insurance Co.Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

05 Feb 2020

ORDER

Complaint Filed on:28.05.2018

Disposed On:05.02.2020

                                                                              

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

 

 

 

 

 

05^thDAY OF FEBRUARY 2020

 

PRESENT

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., BAL, LLM - PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, B.A., LLB, MEMBER

 

 

COMPLAINT No.921/2018

 

 

COMPLAINANT	Sri.Narasimhaiah B.R, S/o Late Ramanna, Aged about 54 years, Residing at No.421, 1st Cross, Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, 5th Block, BSK 3rd Stage, 3rd Phase, Bangalore – 560 026.   Advocate – Smt.Laxmamma H.P.       V/s
OPPOSITE PARTy	Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Office at No.217/A, Kvv Samrat, 3rd Floor, 3rd Main, Outer Ring Road, Kasturi Nagar, Bangalore – 560043.   Rep. by its Manager.   Advocate – Sri.B.CShivanne Gowda.

 

ORDER

 

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., PRESIDENT

 

The complainant has filed this complaintU/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986against Opposite Party (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct OP to refund amount of Rs.2,36,000/- along with interest @ 24% p.a from the date of the loss of the vehicle to till the date of payment, to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards damages for the defective service and consequential loss.

 

2. The brief allegations made in the complaint are as under:

 

 

Complainant submitted that the complainant is the registered owner of TATA Indica Vista Terra TDI vehicle bearing registration No.KA-05-MH-3727, Engine No.4751DT14AZYP03917 and chassis No.MAT608531APA07842.  The said vehicle insured with the OP vide policy bearing No.2311/50590970/06/000.  Complainant submitted that on 05.08.2016 he has parked the said car in front of his house and he was also ensured that the vehicle was locked.  Complainant had to travel to Bellary to attend trust meeting of Adikeshavulu Swamy Mutt from 05.08.2016 to 09.08.2016.

 

The complainant further submitted that who had to travel to Bellary after finishing his dinner came out of his house and it was shocked and surprise of the complainant that vehicle was parked was missing.  The complainant searched the vehicle with neighbors and the family members.  The search was in vain since the vehicle could not be traceable.  The complainant further submitted that the complainant realized that it was not an act of mischief but an actual theft had taken place.  The complainant immediately went to Chennammanakere Achukattu Police Station at about 1.00 a.m to lodge the complaint.  The police declined to register the complaint since the Station House Officer was not available.  The Police had instructed the complainant to come back in the morning to register the complaint.  The complainant being the trustee of Adikeshavalu Swamy Mutt at Bellary and he was left with no other alternative to take a public transport to reach Bellary.  Since the complainant was away, the wife of the complainant on 06.08.2016 went to the jurisdiction police station to lodge a complaint but the Station House Officer again refused to register the complaint on a flimsy and frivolous ground that the vehicle in question was registered in the name of the complainant and refused to register the complaint.

 

The complainant further submitted that after reaching Bellary immediately the complainant intimated the OP as well as agent of OP through phone regarding the theft of his vehicle.  Thus the complainant has fulfilled his part of obligation by bringing the notice of theft to the knowledge of the service provider.  After returning from Bellary complainant immediately went to the police station, but the Station House Officer ignored the plea of the complainant to register the complaint but they have assured that the vehicle would be traced within four or five days and instructed the complainant to wait for a week.

 

The complainant who was under mental stress on account of the loss of vehicle, waited for a week.  The wait went in vain and as there was no information from the jurisdictional Police Station, the complainant again went to the Police Station on 17.08.2016 and it was only on this day that the jurisdictional Police performed their duty in accordance with the law and the complaint was registered.

 

The complainant further submitted that since the OP was insisting for production of FIR in order to process the claim of the complainant.  The complainant went to the office of OP and registered the case regarding theft of the vehicle and the documents are also produced along with the claim form.  Thereafter the OP appointed an investigator vide letter dated 06.12.2016 to investigate the claim of the complainant.  The said investigator had never recorded any statement of the complainant during the course of his investigation which itself cast a cloud of uncertainty on the procedure or lack of it being employed by the OP to settle the claim.

 

Complainant further submitted that the complainant visited the OP’s office several times.  Further the OP asked and verify the various issues that were raised which needless to say nothing but an exercise which was made to delay the legitimate claim of the complainant.  Finally OP repudiated the claim by issuing a letter dated 27.09.2017 stating that there was a 12 days delay in intimating about the loss of the vehicle in question.  The said intimation was issued by the OP nearly an year after the complainant having registered his claim which itself goes to demonstrate that the rejection is unlawful, illegal and against the terms of the policy.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint.

 

3. In response to the notice issued, OP appeared through their advocate and filed their version contending in brief, as under:

 

OP submitted that the complainant had insured his vehicle bearing No.KA-05-MH-3727 with the OP.  As per the policy of the insurance and liability against the OP if any the same is limited as per the terms and condition of the policy of the insurance and also as per provisions of Motor Vehicle Act.

 

OP further submitted that the complainant vehicle stolen on 06.08.2016.  Complainant informed the said fact to OP on 18.08.2016.  Immediately OP has appointed the investigator to investigate the alleged theft.  Accordingly investigator submitted his report after thorough investigation.

 

The OP further submitted that as per the police records the complainant informed theft to the police only on 17.08.2016 and he was informed to the OP on 18.08.2016.  Therefore it is clear that the complainant herein was violated the policy terms and conditions No.1.  Hence the complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to dismissed.  Further the OP submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the policy clears that he has to inform the concerned police and also the OP immediately after the theft was taken place.  But in the instant case the complainant informed the police only on 17.08.2016 and also informed the OP on 18.08.2016 and therefore the same is against the policy terms and condition of the policy.  Thereby he has prevented the policy and also this OP traced out the insured car and hence on verification of all the documents, the claim was repudiated by the OP.  The same was intimated to the complainant.  Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.  Rest of the allegations made by the complainant is denied by OP.  Hence OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the OP have filed their affidavit reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and objections.  Complainant and OP have produced certain documents.  OP has produced written arguments.  We have heard the arguments of complainant and OP and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both parties scrupulously and posted the case for order.

 

5. Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration;

 

 

1. Whether the complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP, if so, whether complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?

 

 

2.  What order?

 

6. Our findings on the above points are as under:

 

Point No.1:  Affirmative in part

Point No.2:  As per the order below

 

REASONS

 

 

7.Point No.1:-It is an admitted fact that the complainantis the registered owner of TATA Indica Vista Terra TDI vehicle bearing registration No.KA-05-MH-3727.  The said vehicle insured with the OP vide policy bearing No.2311/50590970/06/000.  It is also admitted fact that at the time of theft of the vehicle policy was in force. 

 

 

8. The contention of the complainant is that, the complainant came from work at 11.00 PM and parked the said vehicle in front of his house on 05.08.2016 after having dinner complainant noticed that the complainant vehicle was stolen.  Immediately complainant went to Chennammanakere Achukattu Police Station to lodge the complaint.  The police declined to register the complaint as the Station House Office was not available.  The complainant being a trustee of Adikeshavalu Swamy Muttto attend trust meeting the complainant had to travel to Bellary on 05.08.2016 and he came back from Bellary on 09.08.2016.  After came back from Bellary he immediately went to Police Station to register the complaint but the Police informed the complainant to wait for 4 to 5 days.  As per instructions of the Police, the complainant waited for a week and there was no information with regard to the stolen vehicle.  Complainant again visited the Police Station & lodge complaint on 17.08.2016.  After lodging the complaint before the Police Station the complainant submitted a claim form along with documents before the OP.  The OP has rejected the claim of the complainant only on the ground that the complainant informed the theft of the vehicle after lapse of 12 days.  As per the terms and condition No.1, the complainant is not entitled for the claim amount.  To substantiate this contention the complainant produced FIR copy, charge sheet, repudiation letter and letter issued by the president of trust. 

 

9. Admittedly the complainant is an RC owner of the TATA Indica Vista Terra TDI vehicle and the same was insured with the OP.  As per the FIR report and charge sheet, the police authority submitted a report stating that the complainant vehicle which was stolen could not be traced.  The said fact was not disputed by the OP.  The OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant only on the ground that there is 12 days delay in intimating the theft to the OP.  Hence the claim is not admissible under the terms and conditions No.1.  Admittedly as per Ex-A3 the complainant being a trustee of Adikeshavalu Swamy Mutt, to attend trust meeting the complainant had travelled to Bellary on 05.08.02016 and came back from Bellary on 09.08.2016.  After coming back from Bellary immediately he went to the police station to register the complaint but the police informed the complainant to wait for 4 to 5 days.  After waiting 4-5 days the complainant given a written complaint to the police and also submitted the claim form before the OP.  On the above facts there is no delay on the part of the complainant in submitting the claim form.  Moreover the complainant in his affidavit evidence stated that he has informed the theft of the vehicle to the OP through phone on the next day of incident.  Be that as it may the contention of the OP does not hold good in view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.15611/2017 (Supreme Court of India) – OM Prakash – V/s. Reliance General Insurance and another has observed as under:

 

 

“10.   Condition No.1 of the Insurance policy states that notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured has to give all such information and assistance as the company may require”

 

11.     It is common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straightway go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation.  At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle.  It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle.  However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances.  The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds.  Rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy-holders in the insurance industry.  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.  It needs no emphasis that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of consumers.  It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction.  This laudable object should not be forgotten while considering the claims made under the Act.

 

 

10. Based on the facts of the case and background of yardstick of the above said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, OP is not at all justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant on the basis delay in intimating the alleged theft.Therefore, we are of the opinion that, OP has to be directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,36,000/- being the total IDV value of the vehicle in terms of the policy document.  Since OP has repudiated the claim without any valid reasons they shall have to be directed to pay interest on the claim amount at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of repudiation till the date of realization.  Further OP is directed to pay litigation cost Rs.10,000/-.    Accordingly, we answer the point No.1 partly in the affirmative.

11. Point No.2: In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:     

 

 

O R D E R

 

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part.

 

 

The OP is directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.2,36,000/- (Two Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand only) to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of repudiation to till the date of realization. 

 

Further OP is directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

 

 

This order is to be complied by the OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

 

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this05^thday of February 2020)

 

 

 

(ROOPA N.R)                                             (PRATHIBHA R.K)

   MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT

 

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Narasimhaiah B.R

 

 

 

Copies of documents produced on behalf of complainant:

 

Ex-A1	Copy of complaint 17.08.2016.
Ex-A2	Copy of FIR dated 17.08.2016.
Ex-A3	Copy of letter dated 26.06.2017.
Ex-A4	Copy of repudiation letter of OP dated 27.09.2017.
Ex-A5	Copy of claim form.
Ex-A6	Copy of Charge sheet.
Ex-A7	Copy of insurance policy.

 

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the OP by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Ramesh P, who being working as Senior Executive in OP Insurance Company.

Copies of documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party:

 

Ex-R1	Copy of policy with terms and conditions booklet.
Ex-B2	Copy of repudiation letter.
Documents	Copies of authorities (two in numbers)

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA N.R)                                             (PRATHIBHA R.K)

   MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT