Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/260/2019

A. Nazeer Ahamed - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

N. Karthikeyen

12 Dec 2022

ORDER

                                                                                                                                       Date of Complaint Filed : 23.09.2019

                                                                                                                                       Date of Reservation          : 28.11.2022

                                                                                                                                       Date of Order                     : 12.12.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:  TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                             : PRESIDENT

                     THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,             :  MEMBER  I 

                     THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,      : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 260 /2019

MONDAY, THE 12^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2022

 

A. Nazeer Ahamed,

S/o. Abdul Lathif,

Plot No. 21, 3/530, 4^th Cross Street,

Lakshmana Perumal Nagar,

Kottivakkam,

Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai – 600 041.                                                                                                                        ...    Complainant

-Vs-

 

1.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

   Registered and Head Office, No. 24, Whites Road,

   Chennai-600014.

 

2.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

   Catholic Centre, No. 64,

   Armenian Street,

   Chennai-600001.                                                                                                                      ...  Opposite parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant              : M/s. N. Karthikeyan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties         : M/s. C. Paranthaman

 

        On perusal of records and having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Parties,we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the Member-I, Thiru. T.R.Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays the Opposite parties to pay the claim of Rs.3,09,417/- to the Complainant with interest at 12% p.a from the date of this complaint till date of payment and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for the mental agony, hardship, inconvenience and sense of deprivation along with cost.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

       The Complainant is the owner of the vehicle Toyota/ Qualis, Saloon, 2000 Model, bearing Registration No. TNO7-L-8344, Engine No. 2L9596506, Chassis No. LFS01007020. The Complainant purchased the above vehicle in the year 2004. The vehicle has been under insurance cover ever since it was purchased. The Complainant insured the vehicle with the 1^st Opposite Party' company under Policy No. 0131003116P110064588 issued by the Second Opposite Party, Catholic Center Branch, No. 64, Armenian Street, Chennai - 600001. The Policy was effective for the period 00:00 hrs on 28.10.2016 to midnight 27.10.2017. The insured value of the vehicle was Rs. 1,75,000/-. He had handed over the above said vehicle for some repairs to his regular mechanic Mr. Srinivasan who has his workshop in Besant Nagar. The said Srinivasan had handed over the vehicle for some electrical work to Mr. Kumar@ Sivakumar who is having his shop in III Avenue, Adayar. The said Srinivasan had handed over the vehicle to one Kumar @ Sivakumar on 26.09.2017 for electronic work. The said Kumar @ Sivakumar had completed the works on the vehicle on 26.09.2017 around 8.00 PM and had given the keys back to Srinivasan to take the vehicle. The said Srinivasan however left the vehicle on the platform in front of the shop of the said Mr. Kumar @ Sivakumar, locked the vehicle and left. On 27.09.2017 morning when the said Mr. Kumar @ Sivakumar came to his shop he found the vehicle was missing. The said Mr. Kumar @ Sivakumar made a search for the vehicle and could not trace it and lodged a police complaint for theft on 29.09.2017 before the Thiruvanmiyur Police Station. An FIR was registered in respect of the said complaint on 31.12.2017. As the vehicle was not traceable the FIR was closed as Undetectable by the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, by final order dated 20.03.2019. He was busy pursuing the matter before the Thiruvanmiyur Police Station. After the final order was passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, he lodged a complaint with the Service HUB: of the First Opposite Party at "Silingi Building". I Floor, No. 134, Greams Road, Chennai - 600006. The concerned official in the insurance company received the complaint but did not give any acknowledgment and said it was not made in time. The main reason for declining the claim was there was delay in informing the Opposite Parties regarding the theft. Further the insurance had expired at midnight on 27.10.2017. With great difficulty he had obtained the claim form and submitted his claim on 02.02.2018. Till date there has been no response for his claim. The Opposite parties have also not disclaimed the liability. That the occurrence of theft of the vehicle was on 27.09.2017 while the above said policy was in force. In the case of theft the insurance company is bound to pay the insured value as per the terms of the policy. The policy in section - I (1) specifically provides that the insurance company would indemnify the insured against burglary, house breaking or theft. And as per the terms of the policy the sum insured - Insureds Declared Value would be the sum insured, fixed at the commencement of the policy. He was unable to understand why there is so much delay in settling the claim. He had submitted all the documents like the complaint, FIR and the order of the Court, Insurance Policy, etc., but there has been no proper response from the Opposite parties. He had been taking all steps legally after the theft of the vehicle with the concerned officials in the Police Department and in the Court and the Court has declared the vehicle as Undetectable. Since he was pursuing the matter with the police authorities the theft was not reported to the 1^st Opposite Party immediately. There was also no time limit for reporting loss of the vehicle. Hence any delay in reporting the theft to the insurance company is not a ground for declining the claim. Even under the rules governing the policy there is no bar for the settlement of the claim of this Complainant. The policy of insurance clearly covers theft of the vehicle. Since the vehicle has been stolen and has not been traced the 1^st Opposite Party is liable to pay the insured the declared value of Rs.1,75,000/-. The 1^st Opposite Party had evaded liability on the unreasonable ground that the theft was not reported or informed to the First Opposite Party immediately. Further none of the clauses in the insurance policy support the claim of the 1^st Opposite Party. The denial of the claim was a high handed arbitrary action which is not supported by any reason, rules or logic. He had suffered loss, mental agony and a sense of deprivation by the denial. All along he was led to believe his vehicle was safely insured.  The non settlement of the claim by the 1^st Opposite Party amounts to deficiency of service and dishonest trade practice. The Opposite Party has to compensate him for the loss, mental agony sense of deprivation. He had issued a legal notice dated 07.08.2019 to the 1^st Opposite Party and the same was received on 09.08.2019. Till date there has been no reply nor any settlement of the claim. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 in brief is as follows:-

        It was true that the complainant took insurance policy with 1^st  Opposite party branch office the 2^nd opposite party for the Vehicle Toyota, Qualis, Saloon, 2000 Model, bearing Registration No. TN 07- L- 8344, Engine No. 2L 9596506, Chassis No. LFS01007020. Vide policy No. 0131003116P110064588 covering the period 28.10.2016 to 27.10.2017. They have no knowledge about the details mentioned in the entire complaint except about the said Insurance Policy. As per the complaint the vehicle was missing on 27.09.2017 but the FIR was registered on 31.12.2017 as such there is inordinate delay and a false story made by the complainant to file the complaint. Though the complainant filed document that a claim form dated 02.02.2018 alleged to have been submitted to the service HUB. They never issued claim form and they have not received any claim form as allegedly stated by the Complainant. In order to make a claim before the consumer forum he came up with the so called submission of claim application before the opposite parties. Further they never received the motor claim intimation slip because there was no any acknowledgement given by the opposite parties. Hence there was no question of deficiency in service as alleged. The complainant has approached this forum not with the clean hands and the calculation of the damages assessed by the complainant are high and not reasonable one. The claim for mental agony and hardship is baseless and exaggerated. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.

4.   The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-10  were marked. The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 submitted their Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Opposite Parties no documents was marked.     

Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

        It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had availed Insurance Policy for his Vehicle Toyota Qualis, 2000 Model, bearing Registration No.TN 07-L-8344, from the 2^nd Opposite Party, valid from 28.10.2016 to 28.10.2017 for an insured value of Rs.1,75,000/-.

        The dispute arose when the subject vehicle of the Complainant was found missing on 27.09.2017, when it was left for Electrical work to one Mr.Kumar @ sivakumar, the said kumar @Sivakumar had lodged a complaint on 29.09.2017 before Thiruvanmiyur Police Station about missing of the Complainant’s vehicle. Thereafter FIR was registered on 31.12.2017, after obtaining final order, claim of Insurance amount was submitted on 02.02.2018 to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party had settled the claim of the Complainant.

        The contentions of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 were that they never issued claim form and had not received any claim form from the Complainant on 02.02.2018, only to make a claim before this Commission, had come out with said allegation, further there was no acknowledgement was given to the alleged claim form, by the Opposite Party. The Complaint was given by one Mr.Sivakumar on 27.09.2017 and FIR was registered on 31.12.2017, hence there was delay of 95 days from the date of complaint and date of FIR. There was no deficiency in service on their part.

        On perusal of Exs.A-2 and Ex.A-3 Insurance Policy cover note and Insurance Policy the Complainant had availed Insurance Policy of the Opposite Parties in respect of the subject vehicle covering period from 28.10.2016 to 27.10.2017. From Ex.A-4 the Registration Certificate, the subject vehicle is in the name of the Complainant. Ex.A-5 CSR dated 29.09.2017 issued by Thiruvanmiyur Police Station to one Kumar @ Sivakumar, a complaint given in respect of the subject vehicle was acknowledged by concerned Police Station. From Ex.A-6 FIR dated 31.12.2017, it is clearly mentioned that the complaint in respect of the subject vehicle was lodged on 29.07.2017 itself and the FIR was found to be registered on 31.12.2017. From Ex.A-7, the Motor Claim intimation slip along with photocopy of the claim form were found to be submitted on 02.02.2018 by the Complainant to the Opposite Party. Ex.A-8, the final order dated 20.03.2019 passed by the Hon’ble XVIII Metro Politan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, the FIR found to be closed as undetectable, on the report dated 20.08.2018 submitted by concerned Police Authority before the said Magistrate Court. Ex.A-9 the legal notice dated 07.08.2019 sent on behalf of the Complainant to the 1^st Opposite Party, explaining all the facts and called upon the 1^st Opposite Party the settle the claim, inspite of receipt of Ex.A-9 as found in Ex.A-10, the Opposite Party had not responded.

        On discussion made above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the Complaint on missing of the subject vehicle of the Complainant on 27.09.2017, was lodged on 29.09.2017 itself as evident from Ex.A-5. Further the claim form submitted by the Complainant on 02.02.2018 is evident from Ex.A-7, which was immediately after registration of FIR, as found in Ex.A-9. Hence there is no delay in lodging the complaint on missing of the Complainant’s vehicle. Hence the contentions of the Opposite Parties that they have not received any claim form as no acknowledgement was given by them, is not legally sustainable as the Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble National Commission had held that in case of theft the affected party should act immediately in lodging the complaint in time to the Police Authorities, the Insurance Company or a Surveyor would have limited role, in the instant case the complaint has been lodged in time. The Judgement of our Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, in F.A.No.246/2017, dated 04.01.2022 relied upon by the Opposite Parties would clearly show that only to fill up the lacuna on the part of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2, as the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 had not contended about non-intimation of the theft of the subject vehicle by the Complainant or about any violation of the policy, in their Written Version, Proof Affidavit and Written Argument filed. It is clear that Opposite Parties 1 and 2 had acted negligently in settling the legitimate Insurance claim of the Complainant, clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos.2 and 3:-

        As discussed and decided in Point No.1 as against the Opposite Parties 1 and 2, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- being the Insured Declared value under Policy No. 0131003116P110064588 in respect of Toyota Qualis bearing Registration No.TN 07 L 8344, together with interest @6% p.a from the date of claim form, i.e., from 02.02.2018 to till the date of this order and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony caused to the Complainant, along with Rs.5,000/- towards costs. Accordingly, point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Five Thousand Only) being the Insured Declared value under Policy No.0131003116P110064588 in respect of Toyota Qualis bearing Registration No.TN 07 L 8344, together with interest @6% p.a from the date of claim form, i.e., from 02.02.2018 to till the date of this order and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards deficiency of service and mental agony caused to the Complainant, along with Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards costs, to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of receipt of this order till the date of realisation.

          In the result this complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 12^th of December 2022. 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	-	Copy of Aadhar Card of Complainant
Ex.A2	28.10.2016	Motor Vehicle Insurance Cover Note Opp.Party/Complainant
Ex.A3	-	Certificate-cum Policy Schedule Opp.Party/Complainant for 2016-2017 with Policy
Ex.A4	-	Form of Certificate of Registration
Ex.A5	29.09.2017	Complaint receipt issued by Thiruvanmiyur P.S
Ex.A6	31.12.2017	FIR submitted by the Thiruvanmiyur P.S
Ex.A7	02.02.2018	Claim submitted to the 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A8	20.03.2019	Final order by XVIII M.M., Saidapet(with notice to Complainant)
Ex.A9	07.08.2019	Copy of legal notice to 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A10	09.08.2019	Acknowledgement card

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

 

NIL

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                      MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT