BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER
Tuesday, 1st March 2016
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 81/ 2015
G. Ravi Kumar, S/o G. Chinna Pullaiah,
Hindu, aged 31 years, W/as Advocate clerk,
R/o D.No. 1/1700-1, Gandhinagar,
Yerramukkaplli, Kadapa city. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Branch Manager,
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Upstairs of Indian Overseas Bank, Near Apsara Circle,
Chinnachowk Post, Kadapa City – 516 001,
Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh State.
2. The Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
D.No. 6-3-352/1, Osman Plaza, Road No. 1,
Banjara Hills, Panjagutta, Hyderabad – 500 034.
3. The Branch Manager, IndusInd Bank Ltd.,
D. No. 4/443-1, Siva Complex, Bapuji Road,
Aravindanagar, Kadapa – 516 001. ….. Opposite parties
This complaint coming for final hearing on 17-2-2016 in the presence of Sri K. Vijaya Krishna, Advocate for complainant and Sri D. Rajasekhar Reddy, Advocate for opposite parties 1 & 2 and O.P.3 remained exparte on 5-10-2015 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the Opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally to pay an amount of ₹ 48,513/- being the cost of vehicle by indemnifying the contract of insurance policy with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of theft i.e. 30-10-2014 till realization, to pay an amount of ₹ 25,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service, ₹ 25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and physical strain and ₹ 10,000/- towards cost of the complaint to the complainant.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the complainant is eking out his livelihood working as Advocate Clerk in District Court, Kadapa. He purchased two wheeler bearing No. AP 04 AW : 5095 motor cycle from V.K. Honda Show room, Kadapa on 18-4-2014. O.P.3 extended financial assistance to him in purchasing the said vehicle. The vehicle was duly insured with opposite parties 1 & 2 insurance company under the policy bearing No. 3005/2010743043/00/0000006193 valid from 23-4-2014 to 22-4-2015. On 30-10-2014 at about 10.00 a.m the complainant parked the motor cycle in front of the premises of Bar Association, District Court complex, Kadapa and went inside the court to look after his work. He returned at 1.00 p.m to the parking place and found his motor cycle was missed, immediately he brought the same to the notice of the vehicles watcher and also an advocate by name Sri V. Rama Mohan, and searched the vehicle but could not traced. He went to 1 town police station, Kadapa and complained about the theft of his motor cycle but police directed him to approach C.C.S Police station, Kadapa then he went there but they told to approach the concerned jurisdictional police station i.e. 1 town police station, Kadapa. Then he searched for his motor cycle but did not traced it. Atlast he gave a complaint to 1 town police station on 11-11-2014 and case in Cr. No. 334/2014 under section 379 of IPC was registered and investigated. The complainant also gave oral intimation to O.P.1 about theft of his motor cycle. Immediately, after theft and also after registered crime and made claim. The O.P.1 also acknowledged by sending SMS on 17-12-2015. The complainant furnished all necessary records such as Original R.C. 2 keys, ID proof, insurance Certificate, FIR, invoice copy and bank passbook to process the claim by O.P.1. The complainant also gave a detailed reply on 21-5-2015 for the letter dt. 12-5-2015 by the insurance company sought for clarification documents required. On 8-7-2015 the insurance company addressed a letter informing that the claim of complainant is treated as no claim, as FIR was lodged after 12 days of theft of the vehicle and violated policy conditions. There was no latches on the part of the complainant as stated by opposite parties. The insurance company treated claim of the complainant as no claim without any assigning reason. Hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in rendering the service under contract of insurance. The acts of the opposite parties are caused mental agony and physical strain to the complainant. O.P.3 is added only as formal party and no relief claimed against him. Hence, the complainant for above the reliefs against opposite parties1 & 2.
3. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed common counter denying allegations in the compliant regarding deficiency of service on their part and their liability to pay compensation as claimed by the complainant. They denied theft of motorcycle on 30-10-2014. It is further averred one Veeraiah was maintaining motorcycle and scooter stand and one cannot take the vehicle without permission of the said Veeraiah. The complainant gave complaint to 1 town police station on 11-11-2014 after 12 days missing of his motor cycle. There is no evidence that the police are traced or not traced his vehicle and what is stage of the vehicle. It is further averred that notice shall be given in writing to the company, immediately upon the occurrence in incidental loss or damage. In the event of any claim the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. In case of theft or criminal act it may be the subject claim under this policy, the insured shall give immediately notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the evidence of offender. As per terms and conditions of the policy the insured has to give notice in writing within 30 days from the date of happening of any event. But the complainant intimated the same after 48 days of the event to the opposite parties. Hence, the compliant is not maintainable before this forum. No final report was filed regarding theft of vehicle, as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
4. Opposite party No. 3 remained exparte.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 as pleaded by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs against the opposite parties 1 & 2?
- To what relief?
6. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties. But on behalf of the complainant Exs. A1 to A11 documents are marked and on behalf of the opposite parties Exs. B1 to B3 are marked.
7. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the material placed on record.
8. Point Nos. 1 & 2. It is contended by the complainant that in spite of submitting all documents to the opposite parties 1 & 2 not settled the claim for the theft of his insured vehicle. Therefore, there is deficiency of service and complainant is entitled for the reliefs.
9. On the other hand learned counsel for opposite parties 1 & 2 vehemently contended that the complainant failed to report the theft of insured vehicle to the police immediately, after the occurrence and also not informed to the opposite parties 1 & 2 and delay has not been explained properly. Thus there is doubt regarding theft of the insured vehicle. He further contended that the complainant failed to file final report from the police about investigation of the theft of the insured vehicle and there is no information from the complainant’s side whether the vehicle is traced or not. In view of the absence of such evidence the claim of complainant cannot be honoured by the company. So the same was rightly repudiated and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. There is much force in the contention of learned counsel for complainant to hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 and complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
11. It is no doubt true the complainant filed documents under Exs. A1 to A11 and Ex. A7 copy of FIR shows that he gave complaint on 11-11-2014 regarding theft of his motor cycle in 1 town Police station, Kadapa and registered Cr. No. 339/2014 under section 379 IPC. But a perusal of report by the complainant shows that the vehicle was committed theft on 30-10-2014 when it placed the same in District Court premises. If such is the case he would have given report immediately after the theft of the insured vehicle and need not wait 12 days to report the same to the police since the theft is alleged to have committed in Kadapa town itself the complainant should have attempted to give report even on the next day of the theft of the vehicle, but he did not do so. He did not also give any report to the care taker of the parking place of the vehicle. So the delay in giving FIR to police has not been properly explained by him regarding theft of his vehicle.
12. Further the complainant also not brought to the notice of opposite parties 1 & 2 within reasonable time about the theft of the insured vehicle. This also creates doubt about the theft of the vehicle as alleged by the complainant.
13. That apart the complainant has not placed any evidence regarding stage of investigation in respect of theft of vehicle whether it was traced by the police or not traced or any final report was issued to him in respect of investigation. Since final report is not issued by the police to the complainant regarding tracing of the vehicle and it is not produced before the opposite parties 1 & 2, who are expected to settle the claim, it cannot be said that they unreasonably repudiated insurance claim of complainant in respect of his vehicle. There is latches on the part of the complainant for not submitting all the required documents by the insurance company. Therefore, we hold there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 in settling the claim of complainant and claim was rightly repudiated by the opposite parties 1 & 2 and complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed against the opposite parties 1 & 2 and complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered against the complainant.
14. Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, typed my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 1st March 2016
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Opposite parties : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of invoice dt. 18-4-2014 issued by V.K. Honda, ITI Circle, Kadapa.
Ex. A2 P/c of sale certificate dt. 18-4-14 issued by V.K. Honda, ITI Circle, Kadapa.
Ex. A3 P/c of certificate of Registration of the two wheeler bearing No. AP 04 AW :
5095, dt. 18-10-2014.
Ex. A4 P/c of statement of account dt. 19-12-2014 issued by IndusInd Bank,
Kadapa branch.
Ex. A5 P/c of election identity card of the complainant dt. 12-12-2018
Ex. A6 P/c of certificate cum policy No. 3005/2010734043/00/0000006193 valid
from dt. 23-4-2014 to 22-4-2015 issued by ICICI Lombard motor
insurance.
Ex. A7 P/c of FIR and complailnt dt. 11-11-2014 in Cr. No. 339/2014 of Kadapa
1 town P.S.
Ex. A8 Letter dt. 17-12-2014 given by ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd., Hyderabad.
Ex. A9 Lr. Dt. 12-5-2015 given by ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd., to the complainant.
Ex. A10 Reply letter dt. 21-5-2015 given by the complainant to the ICICI Lombard
GIC Ltd., Hyderbad.
Ex. A11 Lr. Dt. 8-7-2015 given by the ICICI Lombard GIC to the complainant
treated as no claim.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties.
Ex. B1 P/c of insurance policy issued by the opposite parties company
dt. 23-4-2014.
Ex. B2 P/c of letter dt. 12-5-2015 issued by the opposite parties company
to the complainant along with speed post receipt.
Ex. B3 P/c of repudiation letter dt. 8-7-2015 along with repudiation
observation sheet.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri K. Vijaya Krishna, Advocate for complainant.
- Sri D. Rajasekhar Reddy, Advocate for O.P. 1 & 2.
- The Branch Manager, IndusInd Bank Ltd., D.No. 4/443-1,
Siva Complex, Bapuji Road, Aravindanagar, Kadapa–1
B.V.P.
