Karnataka

Kolar

CC/11/2024

Narayanaswamy.V - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard Insurance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.N.Srinath

30 Apr 2024

ORDER

Date of Filing: 14/02/2024

Date of Order: 30/04/2024

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

Dated:30^th DAY OF APRIL 2024

SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI, B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:11/2024

 

Narayanaswamy. V

S/o. Venkatappa,

Aged about 54 years,

R/o. Yeldur Village, Post & Hobli,

Srinivaspur Taluk.

(Rep. by P.N. Srinath, Advocate)                  ….  Complainant.

 

                                                                                                                - V/s –

ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Branch Office at 9^th Floor,

The Estate 121, Dickenson Road,

M.G. Road,

Bengaluru-44.

(Rep. by Sri. B. Kumar, Advocate)              ……Opposite Party.                                                                  

 

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed under section 35 of the C.P. Act 2019 against the OP praying for direction to the OP Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- along with interest @ 18 % P.a from the date of registering the FIR regarding the theft of the vehicle till realization of the amount along with cost of the proceedings.

 

2. The brief fact of the complaint is that, the complainant is the owner of the two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-52-R-6413 and the said vehicle is insured with the OP insurance Company bearing policy No. 3005/0/226060826/00B00.  The validity period of the policy commencing from 01/09/2021 till 31/08/2022.  It is stated that, the son of the complainant who has taken the above said vehicle on 04/09/2021 for his work and when it was parked the said vehicle in front of Sai Baba Temple at Bangarpet and the left side at about 11:30AM and went to his company for work, at about 02:00PM when he came out for lunch at that time he found that, his parked vehicle was not found in front of the said Sai Baba Temple at Bangarpet.  It is stated that, when the son of the complainant informed him and thereafter, they begin to search the vehicle but it has not been traced out.  Thereafter, on 09/09/2021 they lodged the Police complaint and the case is registered in crime No.247/2021 against the unknown person.  Ultimately the jurisdictional police due to non tracing of the said vehicle and they have filed “C” report.  It is stated that, the complainant also intimated the theft of the vehicle to the respondent company.  Further OP Insurance Company on 01/01/2022 rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground of belatedly lodging the police complaint.  Hence this complaint.

 

3. On issuance of notice, OP appeared through its counsel and filed its version.

 

4. In the version it is contended that, by admitting the insuring the subject vehicle with the OP Company owned by the complainant.  It is also contended that, the claim of the complainant subject to terms and conditions, exceptions and limitations thereof, and the confirmation of the compliance of section 64 VB of the Insurance Act 1938.   It is contended that, as per the saying of the complainant when the subject vehicle was parked at about 11:30AM and non founding of the vehicle at about 2:00PM and in spite of their best efforts the vehicle was not traced out but the complaint is lodged on 09/09/2021 to the jurisdictional police and the concerned police by registering the case in crime No.247/2021 against the unknown person and ultimately they could not traced out the vehicle in question and issued “C” report all these facts absolutely denied as false and untenable.
5. Further, the OP Insurance Company contended that, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damage and in event of any claim and thereafter, the Insured shall give all such information and assistance at the company shall require and hence contended that, as such complainant has not intimated the theft of the vehicle immediately which is usually construed to mean within the reasonable time having due regard to the nature of circumstances of the case.  Further contended that, the crime of the complainant is not maintainable.
6. Further OP contended that, policy of insurance has been taken concealing and suppressing the fact the person whose name policy is taken is dead as such same is nullity since the policy of the insurance is void and there cannot be valid crime under void agreement.  It is contended that, OP came to know about the theft of vehicle only the when the summons have been received from the Hon’ble Court regarding the theft of the vehicle and not prior to it.  Further contended that, complainant acted contrary to terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  On the above said grounds.
7. In order to prove the case of the parties and both parties filed their affidavit evidence.

 

8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points will do arise for our consideration.

 

1.  Whether the complainant proves that, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP for non honoring the insurance claim?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint?
3. What order?

We have heard the arguments of the parties.

Our answers to the above points as under:-

1. Point No.(1)& (2):-    In the Affirmative.
2. Point No.(3):-           As per the final orders

                                 for the following.

 

REASONS

9. Point No.(1) & (2):-  On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence placed on record and we are of the opinion that, these two points are interlinked to each other and in order to avoid repetition of discussion of facts and for the sake of brevity, these points will taken up together for common discussion.

 

10. On perusing the pleadings of the parties it is an undisputed fact that, the complainant is the owner of the Hero Honda Splendor plus two wheeler bearing registration              No. KA-52-R-6413.  Further it is not in dispute the subject vehicle is insured with the OP insurance company and the validity period of insurance policy commencing from 01/09/2021 till 31/08/2022.

 

11.  The specific allegation of the complainant is that, on 04/09/2021 when the son of the complainant parked the subject vehicle before the Sri. Sai Baba temple Bangarpet at about 11:30AM and he was noticed the non availability of the vehicle at about 2:00PM and when the vehicle was not traced out that the complainant lodged the complaint before the jurisdictional police and the police registered case in crime No.247/2021 and finally given the endorsement and issued the “C” report.  The complainant deposed that in his evidence he had intimated the theft of the vehicle to the OP insurance Company but not mentioned the exact date on which day he had informed the OP Insurance Company about the theft of the vehicle.  Whereas, the OP Insurance Company rejected the claim of the complainant due to belatedly lodging the complaint and information.

 

Per Contra, OP contended that, complainant was acted contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy and he failed to intimate the OP Insurance Company belatedly and lodged the delayed complaint to the police.  Hence contending that, the OP Insurance Company is justified for disentitlement of the claim.

 

12.  In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence along with the documents.  On perusal of the letter dated: 01/01/2022 it discloses that, the OP Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that, subject vehicle was stolen on 04/09/2021 and FIR has been lodged on 09/09/2021 after 5 days of theft of the vehicle and hence contended that, the claim is in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is worth to note that, when the complainant and his son searched everywhere for the stolen vehicle but when they did not find they resort to the police complaint and the same thing is not specifically denied by the OP Insurance Company.  It is worth to note that, if the theft was occurred in respect of subject vehicle, the complainant or his son obviously they are under the state of mental agony and naturally they will search for the vehicle here and there and ultimately within 5 days delay lodged the complaint.  When the theft is genuine and same is not denied by the OP.  furthermore, lodging of the police complaint issuing of “C” certificate by the police all these facts made us to draw inference that, the complainant and his son were put their best effort to trace out the vehicle in question, but the police also could not trace out the subject vehicle and ultimately issued “C” report and all these acts made us to draw inference about the bonofide efforts of the complainant.  Furthermore, it is noteworthy to mention that, when the police FIR have been given to the OP Insurance Company they ought to have deployed their investigator to search for the vehicle, whereas simply on technical ground rejected the claim.

 

13. On perusal of the copy of complaint, FIR and these documents demonstrates the genuinely of the theft of the subject vehicle.  On perusing the Insurance Policy it discloses that, the vehicle in question duly insured with the OP Insurance Company and the policy commencing from 01/09/2021 to 31/08/2022 and the theft was occurred as per the FIR on 04/09/2021 and the date of complaint and FIR is 09/09/2021.  It is clear that, the theft of the vehicle was occurred during the currency of the policy.  And the IDV value of the vehicle reflected in the policy is Rs.31,500/-, whereas, the OP Insurance Company merely on technical ground repudiated the claim of the complainant which obviously leads to deficiency in service.  Hence complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.31,500/- along with interest @ 6% P.a from the date of complaint till its realization.  Further the OP made the complainant to wander from pillar to post which leads to filing of this complaint and thereon, complainant is only entitled for cost of proceedings to an extent of Rs.2,000/-.  Accordingly we answered the Point No.(1) & (2) in the Affirmative.

 

14. Point No. (3):- On the basis of discussion and reasons assigned while answering Point No.(1) to (2) and thereon we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby allowed with cost.
2. That the OP Insurance Company i.e., “ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. Ltd”., is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.31,500/- to the complainant along with interest @ 6% P.a. from the date of repudiation till its realization.
3. Further OP Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
4. That the OP Insurance Company is directed to comply the orders shown at Sl. No. (2) & (3) within 30 days and submit compliance report within 45 days.
5. Send a copy of this order to all the parties to the proceedings at free of cost.

 

         (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and   then pronounced by us on this 30^th DAY OF APRIL 2024)

 

 

       MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT