Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

64/2014

V.Munusamy,S/o.Veerasamy pillai, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rep by the branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.M.S.Girish Babu

28 Apr 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  24.03.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  28.04.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

FRIDAY  THE 28^th  DAY OF APRIL 2017

 

C.C.NO.64/2014

 

 

V.Munusamy,

S/o.Veerasamy Pillai,

No.1/3, Srinivasa Cross Street,

Perumbur, Chennai – 11.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1. United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,

Rep by it’s the Branch Manager,

Branch Office: 010804,

No.70, N.S.C.Bose Road,

III Floor, Sowcarpet,

Chennai – 600 079.

 

2. The Inspector of Police,

M1, Madavaram Police Station,

Madavaram, Chennai – 110.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 01.04.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.C.Girish Babu & G.Munuraj

Counsel for 1^st Opposite Party                 : M.B.Gopalan, N.Vijayaraghavan,

                                                                M.B.Raghavan        

 

Counsel for 2^nd Opposite Party                     : Ex - parte

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the 1^st Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- being the insurance amount and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- for mental agony with cost of the Complaint  u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant had purchased the vehicle No.TN 02 S 8406 and model name Ashok Leyland 2214/IS Tanker Lorry through ICICI Finance Ltd. The Complainant is the second owner of the said  vehicle. The Complainant used the said vehicle for supply of fuel and in this connection he entered with an agreement with H.P.C.L for supply of fuel to ATF at Meenanbakkam. As per the agreement the Complainant had been supplying fuel to ATF at Meenambakkam through his vehicle and three other vehicles owned by him for the past 3 years without any Complaint from any quarter. The Complainant was usually parking his vehicle at Manchambakkam at Omakkalamedu for the last 6 years. The Complainant’s driver one Mr.A.Venkatesan had parked the vehicle as usual (TNo2 S 8406) in the Manchambakkam at Omakkalamedu on 04.09.2013, at about 8 p.m and he went to home.  The Complainant’s driver came to Omakkulamedu on 07.09.2012 at 6 p.m., he was shocked and surprised to note that the vehicle (TN02 S 8406) was missing and the driver informed the same to the Complainant. Immediately the Complainant approached M1 Police Station gave a Complaint, but the police official refused to register the Complaint and advised the Complainant to search the vehicle again.  The Complainant again went to M1 Police Station, Madhavaram narrating the efforts made by him to search the vehicle for the past 15 days and again requested the police official to lodge a Complaint and the same was registered on 25.09.2013. The Complainant gave a representation dated to the first Opposite Party. The first Opposite Party sent a reply on 07.10.2013. The first Opposite Party refused representation letter and claim and takes just like that the Complainant’s  life carrier.  First Opposite Party has voluntary refused to accept the Complainant’s representation letter and claim. Further the Complainant has paid next premium on 06.09.2012 for the said vehicle and the date of expiry was on 06.09.2013. The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Complainant for their  negligence rendered to the Complainant and also the Complainant had suffered undisclosed mental agony such that the Opposite Parties are liable to pay cost of the vehicle and compensation for their negligence of treatment rendered to the Complainant and hence this Complaint.   

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant had insured the Lorry TN 02 S 8406 with the 1^st Opposite Party under policy No.01080431/31/11/01/000114502 for the period 07/09/2011 to 06/09/2012. The Complainant lodged claim for theft of vehicle under the above policy. It was alleged that the vehicle was stolen sometime between 03.09.2012 to 07.09.2012 and was noticed only on 07.09.2012 after the policy expired on 06.09.2012. Without specific information of the exact date and time of loss, it cannot be presumed that the loss took place before the expiry of the policy on 06.09.2012. For this very reason the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.  As per the conditions of the policy immediate to the loss of vehicle, the Complainant ought to have preferred Complaint to the police as well as information to the insurance company without delay. The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safe guard the vehicle. The Complainant failed to take reasonable care of the vehicle which is also breach of the condition of the policy. The missing of vehicle was informed to the Opposite Party only after 15 days of the occurrence.  The Opposite Party submits that since the missing vehicle was noticed only on 07.09.2012 after expiry of the policy and the exact date and time of loss is not known due to neglect of the Complainant, there can be no presumption of loss before expiry of policy on 06.09.2012. The 1^st Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service in rejecting the claim of the Complainant and hence prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO :1 

          The admitted facts are that the Complainant had insured his Tanker Lorry Vehicle No.TN 02 S 8406 with the 1^st Opposite Party and the said policy with terms and conditions are marked as Ex.B1 and the Complainant driver parked the Tanker Lorry as usual at Omakkalamedu on 04.09.2013 at 8.00 p.m and went to his home and on 07.09.2012 at 6.00 p.m, he found that  the lorry was missing and after searching at various places the Complainant gave Complaint on 25.09.2012 to the Madhavaram Police after 15 days and they registered vehicle missing case in Crime No.2543/2012  and the FIR is marked as Ex.A5  and the police gave Ex.A6 notice as undetectable and the Complainant gave Ex.B3 claim form dated 07.09.2012 to the 1^st Opposite Party and the said claim was repudiated  by the 1^st Opposite Party under Ex.A9 letter dated 07.10.2003 and  the Complainant made another request under Ex.A10 and the said request also rejected under Ex.A11 that the policy was lapsed.       

5. The Complainant Lorry was left by his driver at Omakkalamedu on 04.09.2013 at about 8.00 p.m and after 3 days on 07.09.2012 at 6.00 p.m the driver found that the vehicle was missing.  Ex.B1 is the policy for the said vehicle which is in force for the period 07.09.2011 to 06.09.2012. After parking the vehicle on 06.09.2012, first time only on 07.09.2012 at about 6.00. p.m   the driver found that the vehicle was missing and on his information the Complainant found the same.

6. The Complainant case is that he has also renewed the policy on 06.09.2012 for a period of one year and this fact was denied by the 1^st Opposite Party that the Complainant has not renewed. Ex.A3 certificate of insurance filed for the period 07.09.2011 to 06.09.2012 & 07.09.2012 to 06.09.2013. The Complainant relies on the second certificate of insurance for the period 07.09.2012 to 06.09.2013 to show that he had renewed the policy. However he had not filed the renewed policy for the said period.

7. The main contention of the 1^st Opposite Party is that the Complainant had breached the first condition of the policy and hence the claim repudiated by the 1^st Opposite Party is sustainable. As per the first condition in case of theft the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate in securing the conviction of the offender.  Admittedly the theft was informed to the police after 15 days of occurrence. Therefore the Complainant has breached the condition of the policy.

          8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in United India Insurance Company Limited v. M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, reported  in IV (2004) CPJ 15 (SC) = V (2004) SLT 876=JT 2004 (8) SC 8 has  held that the terms of policy have to be construed as it is and nothing can be added or subtracted from the same. The policy provides that in the case of theft, the matter should be reported ‘immediately’. In the context of a theft of the car, word ‘immediately’ has to be construed strictly to make the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation. In the case in hand also the first condition of the policy term is that the case of theft should be reported to the police immediately. However, the Complainant reported only after 15 days.

9. The Complainant parked the vehicle on 04.09.2012 in a public place and thereafter he had seen the vehicle only after 3 days on 07.09.2012 at 6.00 p.m only leads to a conclusion that the Complainant had not taken care to safeguard the vehicle.  Therefore, in that respect also the Complainant has breached the condition of the policy as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India referred above. In view of such circumstances that the policy condition was breached by the Complainant and hence the 1st Opposite Party repudiated the claim made by the Complainant is sustainable and therefore, it is held that the 1^st Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service. The 2^nd Opposite Party is an unnecessary party to this Complaint.

 

 

 

10. POINT:2

          Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief in this Complaint and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed without cost.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 28^th day of April 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 07.01.2006                   RC Book (as a second owner)

Ex.A2 dated 04.09.2012                   Issued the invoice by HPCL

Ex.A3 dated 06.09.2012                   Receipt of premium

Ex.A4 dated 07.09.2012                   Claim form request letter

Ex.A5 dated 25.09.2012                   FIR

Ex.A6 dated 30.12.2012                   Undetectable Notice

Ex.A7 dated Jan.2013             The Complainant directly given representation to

                                                     the 1^st Opposite Party

 

Ex.A8 dated NIL                     Further investigation by SI (P1.police station)

Ex.A9 dated 07.10.2013                   The first Opposite Party reply letter

Ex.A10 dated 07.11.2013                 The Complainant directly made 2^nd request to the

                                                     1^st Opposite Party

 

Ex.A11 dated 02.12.2013                 Letter from the 1^st Opposite Party to the

                                                     Complainant rejecting his legitimate claim of

                                                     the complainant

 

Ex.A12 dated NIL                             Driving License of A.Venkatesan (Driver)

Ex.A13 dated 18.02.2014       Legal Notice sent by the Complainant counsel to

                                                    the 1^st Opposite Party and AD card

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Insurance policy with terms and conditions

 

Ex.B2 dated 25.09.2012                   First Information Report

 

Ex.B3 dated 07.09.2012                   Claim Form

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT