IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 30th day of January, 2017
Filed on 01.06.2013
Present
1.Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2.Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.172/2013
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Smt. Sheela Mohandas 1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Mohan’s Shop Registered Head Office
NH 47 Road Whites Road, Chennai
Mohan’s Shopping Complex Nagambakkam High Road
Thiruvampady P.O. Chennai – 600 034, Tamil Nadu
Alappuzha
(By Adv. V. Deepak) 2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Regional Office, Sharanya
Hospital Road, Kochi – 682 011
The Manager, United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., Micro Office
Anaswara Building, APX/309 A
West Nada, Ambalappuzha
Pin – 688 561
(By Adv. R. Hemalatha – for
Opposite parties)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant was running a business shop conducting retail trade in the name and style of Mohan’s shop. The complainant had taken an insurance policy for the shop No.101583/48/09/34/00000057 from the Ambalappuzha branch of the 3rd opposite party covering a period of one year from the date of 6.8.2009 to the midnight of 5.8.2010 by paying a net premium of Rs.11,122/- the policy is covering both the burglary and theft also. The theft was occurred in the above said shop between 9 p.m. in 4.5.2010 and 10 a.m. on 5.5.2010. The fact of the theft was informed to the South Police Station, Alappuzha and Police registered a Crime No.388/2010 u/s 487, 380 of Indian Penal Code. The fact was informed to the 3rd opposite party Insurance Company on the very near day after the theft was committed. The Police have made a thorough investigation on the basis of information given by the complainant, but did not trace the above said articles. The 3rd opposite party informed the complainant that the insured had not taken reasonable steps to safeguard the shop. The opposite parties are well aware of the theft and their representatives visited the Police Station and got convinced the incident had happened. The complainant is entitled to realize the value of the insured amount of Rs.4,29,130/- from the opposite parties. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
The opposite parties issued a shop keeper’s insurance policy to the complainant covering the period from 6.8.2009 to 5.8.2010. Complainant never submitted any claim form or any information to the opposite parties about the alleged incident and they were unaware of the incident. On going through FIR and charge sheet, it is revealed the complainant herself as statement given before the Police that she had lost 4 LCD TV and 2 used Laptop each amounting to Rs.8,000/- and the total loss assessed by the Police from the statement given by the complainant amounting to Rs.48,000/- only. Suppressing the above, the complainant claimed a huge amount of Rs.4,29,130/-. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A5. Ext.A5 marked subject to objection. Opposite party was examined as RW1. The document produced was marked as Ext.B1.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. Opposite parties filed an IA No.89/2013 challenging the maintainability, since the complaint is barred by limitation. After hearing both parties as per the order dated 30.5.2015 this Forum finds that complaint is not barred by limitation and complaint is maintainable.
6. It is an admitted fact that opposite parties issued a shop keeper’s insurance policy to the complainant and its period of insurance was from 6.8.2009 to 5.8.2010. According to the complainant, a theft was occurred in her shop in between 9 p.m. on 4.5.2010 and 10 a.m. on 5.5.2010. In order to substantiate that allegation, complainant has produced FIR, FIS, attested copy of the scene mahazor and the attested copy of the final report. According to the opposite parties, they came to know about the incident only after receiving the notice from this Forum. At the preliminary stage itself, the opposite party raised the question of maintainability on the ground of limitation and the same was answered by this Forum, by passing an order in favour of the complainant. The said order is not challenged by the opposite party. The question of maintainability was raised on the ground that the accident was not reported to the opposite party and the opposite party came to know about the accident only on receiving notice from this Forum. But the complainant produced a repudiation letter at the time of hearing on the question of maintainability, but the opposite party did not change the genuineness at that time. Now during the trial stage, opposite party is estopped from challenging the validity of the repudiation letter, which the opposite party ought to have raised at the time of hearing on maintainability. Since the order of maintainability was passed on relying on the repudiation letter and the said order has now became final, the opposite party can’t again stick on to their contention that the accident was not reported and the repudiation letter is not given. Hence, the contention of the opposite party that the complaint is barred by limitation is not sustainable. According to the opposite party the total loss assessed by the Police from the statement given by the complainant amount to Rs.48,000/- only. But the complainant claims that she is entitled to realize the value of the insured amount of Rs.4,29,130/- from the opposite party. On perusing the FIR, it is seen that as per the statement given by the complainant the total amount due to the theft is about Rs.48,000/-. From the evidence on record it is clear that the total loss sustained by the complainant due to the theft in the shop room is Rs.48,000/-. The repudiation of the claim by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled to get the loss whichq she sustained due to the theft.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to give Rs.48,000/- (Rupees forty eight thousand only) to the complainant with 9% interest per annum from the date of complaint till realization. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant. Since the primary relief is granted further relief for compensation is not allowed. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the day 31st day of January, 2017.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sheela Mohandas (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Attested copy of FIR & FIS
Ext.A2 - Attested copy of Mahazor
Ext.A3 - Attested copy of Final report
Ext.A4 - Certificate of insurance
Ext.A5 - Letter dated 15.5.2013 (Subject to objection)
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Bindu.B. (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Policy and its conditions
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
