State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Varna Malla Reddy,S/O. Hanumantha ... vs The Branch Manager,United India ... on 15 April, 2010
BEFORE THE A.P STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 1550/2007 against
C.C. 190/2006, Dist. Forum, Karimnagar.
Between:
Varna
Malla Reddy
S/o.
Hanumantha Reddy
Age:
42 years, Business
R/o.
2-10-96, Jyothinagar
Karimnagar.
*** Appellant/
Complainant.
And
1)
The Branch Manager
United
India Insurance Company Ltd.
H.No.
2-8-168, 1st
Floor
Mukarampura,
Karimnagar
2)
The Divisional Manager
United
India Insurance Company Ltd.
Ramagundam
Mandal
Karimnagar
Dist.
3)
The Regional Manager
United
India Insurance Company Ltd.
Basheerbagh,
Hyderabad. *** Respondents/
Ops.
Counsel
for the Appellant: : M/s. V. Gourisankara Rao.
Counsel
for the Respondents: : M/s. E. Venugopal Reddy
CORAM:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA
RAO, PRESIDENT.
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA,
MEMBER.
THURSDAY, THIS THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TEN ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President) ***
1) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased Contessa Classic diesel car on 15.7.2002 and obtained an insurance policy for Rs. 2 lakhs covering the period from 24.8.2002 to 23.8.2003. While so, on 9.8.2003 he went to Peddapalli village and while returning to Karimnagar by the time he reached Mogiumpur at about 9.30 p.m. the car was suddenly stopped due to mechanical failure. Therefore he parked on the road by locking it properly, and went to Karimnagar to fetch a mechanic. Since it was late in the night, he could not secure any mechanic. On the next day morning, he took a mechanic and found that the car was missing. They have searched the entire day and there after went to Rural Police Station, Karimnagar to give a complaint. The police advised them to search for some more places. When he could not trace, he gave a complaint on 11.8.2003, basing on which the police registered a case in Crime No. 268/2003 u/s 379 IPC. It was also informed to the insurance company. On 10.4.2004 the police filed final report as undetected. On that he lodged claim for the amount covered under the policy, on which the insurance company sent a letter directing him to furnish original insurance policy, R.C. book, Keys of the car etc. Accordingly he delivered them which was acknowledged on 10.2.2005. Despite his repeated requests it did not settle. Finally 1-1/2 years thereafter on 16.6.2006 it repudiated the claim on the ground that there was delay of 9 months in intimating the incident and no person to guard the car was appointed and no precautions were taken for safe custody of the vehicle. The repudiation after 2-1/2 years was unjustified. In fact he had taken all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle as against theft. Therefore he claimed Rs. 2 lakhs covered under the policy together with interest @ 18% p.a., compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and costs of Rs. 2,500/-.
3) The insurance company resisted the case. While admitting issuance of policy it alleged that it had received for the first time a letter from the complainant on 14.5.2004 informing the theft of car. It did not receive any intimation prior to it. He did not inform immediately after the occurrence. Therefore, they had no occasion to verify the allegation made by the complainant. Immediately it had appointed a licensed surveyor by name Sri S. Jagannantham to investigate. He submitted his report on 24.8.2004. When it had asked the complainant to furnish required documents by its letter Dt. 20.5.2004, 19.9.2004 and 11.2.2005 he did not choose to furnish. The facts disclose that he did not take any steps to safeguard the vehicle. On that they deputed another surveyor to further investigate the facts. He in turn submitted his report on 19.10.2005. The complainant had violated condition No. 1 pertaining to the notice to be given immediately as to the accident, loss or damage and condition No. 4 that the insured had to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss. The complainant went away without keeping any security or taking safety measures. The investigator had found that the complainant was intended to sell the car to a scrap dealer at Karimnagar, and as it was not materialized, he created this in order to get more money. However, the investigator Sri R. Srinivasa Rao assessed the value of the car at Rs. 75,000/- only as it was 1993 model car. The complainant concealed the said fact in order to have material gain. There was no delay. There was no deficiency in service on its part. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A18 marked while the insurance company filed the affidavit evidence of its Divisional Manager and got Exs. B1 to B11 marked.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that there was extraordinary delay of nine months in reporting the incident to the insurance company and that too after the policy was lapsed. He has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. There was no chance for the insurance company to enquire about the theft. Therefore, it dismissed the complaint.
6) Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that for the theft that occurred on 9.8.2003 immediately on 11.8.2003 the matter was reported to the police and equally to the insurance company. In fact he had furnished all the documents and also one of the keys of the car. When there was no response he gave a representation on 19.9.2004 and on that belatedly i.e., on 6.6.2006 it had repudiated the claim. The insurance company repudiated the claim two years after submission of surveyor's report. All this was unjust and therefore he claimed the amount covered under the policy together with interest, compensation and costs.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had insured his Contessa Classic diesel car on 15.7.2002 evidenced under insurance policy Ex. A1 for the period from 24.8.2002 to 23.8.2003 for Rs. 2 lakhs. The complainant alleges that he went to Peddapalli on 9.8.2003 on his car and on his return by the time he reached Mogiumpur at about 9.30 p.m. the car was suddenly stopped due to mechanical failure. Therefore he parked the car on the roadside by locking it properly, and went to Karimnagar to fetch a mechanic. Since it was late in the night, he could not secure. On the next day morning, he took one Mahesh, a mechanic and found the car was not there. They have searched the entire day and there after went to Rural Police Station, Karimnagar to give a complaint. The police advised to search for some more places. While he could not trace, he gave a complaint to the police on 11.8.2003 and also intimated to the insurance company. Basing on which the police registered a case in Crime No. 268/2003 u/s 379 IPC evidenced under FIR Ex. A3 The police after thorough investigation referred the case as 'Undetected" vide report Ex. A4 Dt. 10.4.2004. The complainant alleges that he gave a report to the insurance company on the very same day when he reported to the police. There is no proof in order to state that he gave a belated intimation. However, it is beyond doubt that the insurance company by letter Dt. 28.9.2004 Ex. B5 by quoting claim No. 050001/31/04/00038 directed the complainant to furnish R.C. book, both the set of keys of the vehicle, FIR, Tax Book, claim form duly completed and other documents. The insurance company filed Ex. B2 that was received on 14.5.2004 which according to it was received for the first time for the loss that occurred on 9.8.2003 about 9 months after the so called loss. At the cost of repetition, we may state that admittedly the complainant reminded the insurance company that he had intimated the said fact to the insurance company and by virtue of their request to submit the documents, he has furnished them vide Ex. A6 Dt. 10.2.2005. The said letter has been acknowledged by the insurance company by affixing its seal.
9) It is unfortunate that the insurance company while giving claim number on the claim submitted by the complainant did not file the said claim form in order to find out whether it was belated or not. Obviously it has suppressed to raise this plea. Evidently, the insurance company intends to mislead the Fora by stating that for the first time it had received belated intimation on 14.5.2004. At the cost of repetition, we may state that under Ex. B3 Dt. 20.5.2004 it had requested the complainant to submit other documents which he had complied. Basing on which the insurance company has appointed an investigator by name S. Jagannatham who in turn conducted survey. While confirming the issuance of FIR etc. which he could not have denied, however introduced a theory that he visited Mr. Uppalaiah, a scrap dealer. He informed that "the insured approached once to him some days ago and asked him whether he is willing to purchase the vehicle under scrap. But he has not purchased the vehicle for some reasons." There is no reason why he should go to a scrap dealer while investigating into the claim. It did not occur to him this is highly artificial. They being professional surveyors they introduce one fact or the other, believable or unbelievable to repudiate the claim. Obviously he bent upon repudiating the claim. Therefore he introduced this sort of artificial evidence, solely on the ground that the vehicle was not traced even after its investigation by the police.
10) Despite the above surveyor's report, the insurance company appointed yet another surveyor an investigator by name Sri B. Srinivasa Rao contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court on several occasions. No where the insurance company gave reasons justifying for appointing a second surveyor (See Venkataramana Syndicate Vs. Oriental Insurance Company reported in II (2010) CPJ 1 (SC).
He conducted survey, collected copies of RC, policy, insured's driving license, FIR, final report and notice to the complainant etc., and opined that :
" Further we had been to M/s. Shiva Sai Auto Garage, Rampur, Kothi and met the mechanic Mahesh. After having discussed with him, he said that the owner of the contessa car Mr. Malla Reddy came to his house in the morning and stated to him that his contessa car was air locked and that he had to come to the spot at Mugdumpur village outskirts for repairing his car. As such he went along with the insured to the spot and found that no such car was found. Immediately they came back to Karimnagar. When we asked him to give the same in writing, he refused to do so because of fear."
Finally he concluded that "After going through all the documents, facts and observations and with our investigation, our observations are that the insured with pre-determined plan lodged a false claim with the insurers for wrongful gain.
The insured except the pre-insurance inspection certificate obtained from the surveyor Mr. K. Srinivas could not produce any other evidence. There was not even a single photograph being taken to the I.V. by the said surveyor during his physical verification of the I.V. at the time of his inspection.
The insured deliberately misled us by giving false addresses of the consultancy from where the I.V. was purchased. While in fact he purchased the I.V. from Mr. Ranjeet Saigal, Hyderabad for a consideration of Rs. 75,000/-. Whereas managed the surveyor in getting the pre-insurance inspection certificate for the market value of the I.V. for Rs. 2 lakhs. The said certificate states that the model of the I.V. as 1996, while in fact the RC extract of the I.V. states that the I.V. was registered in the name of Mr. Subash Saigal prior to the insured from 12.4.1993 to 14.8.2002. Subsequently it was transferred to the present insured from 14.8.2002.
The insured though lodged complaint with the Karimnagar Rural Police Station on 11.8.2002 deliberately delayed in lodging claim intimation with the insurers i.e., 9 months from the date of theft of his vehicle i.e. on 14.5.2004. The insured in his complaint to the police had stated that due to airlock it was stopped. Wherein, the I.V cannot move from the spot until or unless it was repaired. Surprisingly, on the next day morning when the insured along with the mechanic went to the spot, found stolen by un-known culprits during night hours.
Hence insurers may decide accordingly keeping in view with the above said facts and observations subject to policy terms and conditions."
(emphasis ours) This is yet another factor introduced to get over their own appraisal of the value of the car and issuance of policy for Rs. 2 lakhs. In the process they do not mind in maligning the surveyor by stating that he was managed. All this is oral. No statement or affidavit whatsoever was filed from the said persons and filed in court. After considering the documents placed on record he opined that the complainant had lodged the complaint with police on 11.8.2003 but deliberately delayed in lodging claim intimation with the insurers till 9 months from the date of theft of his vehicle i.e., on 14.5.2004. This statement already found to be incorrect. The very insurance company referred to the claim number, while addressing letter Ex. B3 Dt. 20.5.2004. The surveyor intends to misguide as he bent upon to repudiate, and repudiated it. The appointment of second surveyor is contrary to law as his report is equally unsustainable.
11) The learned counsel for the insurance company contended that the complainant did not take proper steps to safeguard the vehicle a violation of condition No. 4 of the policy, and therefore not entitled to any compensation. Condition No. 4 reads as follows :
"The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any drier or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entire at the insured's own risk."
12) The vehicle has broken down while traveling from Peddapalli to Karimnagar at about 9.30 in the night on 9.8.2003. Since there was nobody and as there is no village in and around, he locked it, kept it on the road side, went to Karimnagar to fetch a mechanic. On the next day morning, he took a mechanic and found the car was missing. Immediately he gave a report to the police. The police did not suspect any foul play. They investigated into the theft and found that the vehicle was undetectable, and gave final report before the concerned Magistrate. Neither of the surveyors opined that the complainant had screened the car in order to claim wrongfully. Considering place where the car was broken down, and the fact it was in the night, we are of the opinion that the complainant had taken all necessary precautions by locking it.
13) The insurance company before issuing the policy got it inspected by Sri B. Srinivasa Rao marked as Ex. A5 basing on which insurance policy for Rs. 2 lakhs was given. In the teeth of issuance of policy for Rs. 2 lakhs, it cannot turn round and contend that the complainant intended to sell it for scrap which would not fetch more than Rs. 75,000/- .
14) The very fact that they had repudiated two years after the first surveyor submitted his report speaks volumes. They deliberately got delayed the matter in order to repudiate. In the process they had appointed another surveyor contrary to the directions of the Supreme Court that successive surveyors should not be appointed. This has become a routine practise for the insurance companies one way or the other they intend to repudiate the just claims. When the complainant could prove prompt reporting to the police as well as to the insurance company, the insurance company by suppressing the report that was received by them intend to project it as a belated report, and finally repudiated the claim. This is unjust.
The complainant is entitled to the amount for which he had taken the insurance policy. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved his claim and entitled to the amount for which he had taken the policy. Since we intend to award interest, we do not intend to grant any compensation for mental agony etc.
15) In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum. Consequently the complaint is allowed directing the insurance company to pay Rs. 2 lakhs covered under the policy together with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of repudiation viz., from 25.5.2006 till the date of realization together with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________ PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________ MEMBER Dt.
15 . 04. 2010.
*pnr