Date of Filing:07/10/2020 Date of Order:31.03.2021 BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 27. Dated: 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 PRESENT SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B. Retd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT MRS.SHARAVATHI S.M., B.A., LL.B., MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.752/2020 COMPLAINANT : | | Sri. K Devaraj S/o. T.Kariyappa, Aged about 42 years, R/at No.425, 9th Cross, Near Bus Stop, Panchasheelanagara, Bangalore North, Bangalore 560 072 (Rep. by Unnati Law Chambers) | | | | | Vs | OPPOSITE PARTIES: | | The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Unnati Arcade, No.5/111, and 6.112, 1st Floor, 1st Block, Dr.Rajkumar Road, (1st Main Road), Rajajinagar, Bangalore 560 010. (Exparte) | | | |
|
ORDER
BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.
This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant U/S Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the Opposite Party (herein referred in short as O.P) alleging the deficiency in service in repudiating the insurance claim and rejecting the same and for directing OP to pay Rs.3,60,000/- being the ID value of the stolen vehicle along with interest at 24% on the said amount and Rs.50,000/- as damages and for other reliefs as the Commission deems fit.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that;
Complainant is the owner of Eicher Goods vehicle bearing NO.KA.41 A9060 insured with OP. The insurance was valid from 25.04.2018 to 25.04.2019. He is the RC owner of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle used to park the vehicle in front of the Indira canteen, Malagala Junction, Bangalore City, near his house.
3. It is contended that on 18.10.2018 he parked the said vehicle in the said place as usual at 1 am. In the morning at 6 am he noticed that the said vehicle was not in the place where it was parked. He gave a complaint to the police. Who in turn was asked to search out for the same with the neighbours. Afterwards, he lodged a complaint with Kamakshipalya Police, who registered a case under crime No.556/2018 u/s 379 IPC. Complainant sent a letter to the OP making a claim on 03.11.2018 which was received by OP. Inspite of it, OP remained silent intentionally and on 24.08.2018 issued a reply stating that since they have not obtained the final order of the court, his claim has been closed. OP is well aware regarding the procedure and investigation and until the completion of the investigation and filing of the final report, final order from the court is not possible. On 03.12.2019 the jurisdictional police submitted C report to the learned 5th ACMM, Bangalore, who accepted the report. After obtaining the certified copy of the report, the same was produced to the OP and also issued a legal notice on 08.06.2020 to OP to settle the claim which was delivered to OP on 09.06.2018. Inspite of it, neither the OP issued a reply, nor complied with the demand of paying the insurance claim. Hence the act of OP amounts to deficiency in service, negligence and hence the complaint.
4. Upon the service of notice, OP remained absent and hence placed exparte.
5. In order to prove the case, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-
1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?
6. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT NO.1: In the Affirmative
POINT NO.2: Partly in the affirmative.
For the following.
REASONS
7. POINT No.1 AND 2:-
Perused the complaint, affidavit evidence and the documents produced by the complainant. Ex.P1 is the copy of the RC, wherein the name of the complainant appears as owner of the vehicle. Ex.P2 is in form No.45 where the complainant’s name is mentioned as the owner of the said vehicle, which is a medium goods vehicle. Ex.P3 is the copy of the insurance, wherein the same was issued and in existence from 25th April 2018 till 24th April 2019. The premium paid for own damages and third party liability is in all Rs.31,403/-. The ID value is Rs.3,60,000/-. The vehicle was manufactured in the month of November 2007. Ex.P4 is the copy of the FIR and the complaint and P5 is the request/intimation letter regarding the theft of the vehicle and also regarding the claim. Notice has been issued to the OP which has been acknowledged as per the documents maintained by the postal authorities. Ex.P8 is the charge sheet, wherein the police have filed the final report stating that the accused cannot be traced. P10 is the copy of the legal notice to OP, which has been served as per Ex.P7. Inspite of it, OP has not at all intimated even to this day his decision regarding the claim of the complainant. It is not known whether the claim has been admitted or rejected. If at all admitted, it ought to have paid the amount and would have come to the forum upon the service of notice and would have filed the version accordingly. The silence on the part of the OP makes this forum to assume that OP has not taken any decision regarding the claim made by the complainant and the very act of not taking a decision amounts to deficiency in service, which gives a cause of action for the complainant to file this complaint.
8. When the insurance is in force, and the theft has taken place within the validity of the insurance coverage, it is the bounden duty of OP to pay the value of the vehicle, for which, it is insured. In this case, the insured value of the vehicle is Rs.3,60,000/-. The vehicle has been stolen and not traceable.
9. Under the circumstance, not deciding the claim application of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and hence we answer point No.1 in the Affirmative and in the result OP is liable to pay Rs.3,60,000/- along with interest at 12% from the date of claim i.e., 03.11.2018 and further a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards damages for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses and answer point No.2 partly in the affirmative and pass the following;
ORDER
- Complaint is allowed in part with cost.
- OP is directed to pay Rs.3,60,000/- along with interest at 12% from the date of claim i.e., 03.11.2018 till the payment.
- OP is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards damages and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
- The OP is further directed comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 15 days thereafter.
- Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
Note:You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
ANNEXURES
- Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:
CW-1 | Sri.Devaraj - Complainant |
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:
Ex P1: RC of the vehicle
Ex P2: Permit issued by RTO
Ex. P3: Copy of the Insurance
Ex P4: Copy of the FIR with complaint
Ex P5: Letter written by me to the OP
Es P6: Postal receipt
Ex P7: Delivery details issued by postal authorities
Ex P8: Copy of the charge sheet filed by police to the court
Ex P9: Notice issued to me
Ex P10: Legal notice
Ex P11: Postal acknowledgement
Ex P12: Track record.
2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s
MEMBER PRESIDENT
