State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mamindla Uppalaiah vs Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. ... on 28 March, 2013
BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. FA 24 of 2012 against CC 103/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal Between: Mamindla Uppalaiah S/o. Somanarasaiah Agriculturist, R/o. Palakurthy (V&M) Warangal Dist. *** Appellant/ Complainant And 1) Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by its Manager Corporate Claims Dept. Sundaram Towers, 45 & 46 Whittes Road, Chennai-600 014. 2) Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. Rep. by its Manager Pavani Towers, 6th Floor Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda Hyderabad. *** Respondents/ OPs. Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. Alluri Raghu Rama Aurava Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. N. Mohana Krishna CORAM: SMT. M. SHREESHA, PRESIDING MEMBER & SRI S. BHUJANGA RAO, MEMBER THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN ORAL ORDER:
(Per Smt. M. Shreesha, Member) ***
1) Aggrieved by the order in CC No. 103/2011 on the file of Dist. Forum, Warangal the complainant preferred this appeal.
2) The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of Eicher tractor and trailer which was insured with the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 4,34,411/- for the tractor and Rs. 50,000/- for the trailer valid from 10.7.2008 to 9.7.2009. The complainant took his tractor and trailer to the agricultural fields and kept in his cattle shed within the fencing. Unfortunately the trailer and the rear side tyres of the tractor were stolen by unknown persons on 15.1.2009 and after searching for three days the complainant lodged a complaint on 19.1.2009. The police registered a case in Crime No. 6/2009 u/s 379 of IPC and filed a final report on 16.6.2009 treating the case as undetectable and closed it. The complainant submitted claim on 23.1.2009 with all relevant documents for which Ops sent a letter dt. 27.2.2010 stating that there is a delay of 13 days in intimation. The opposite party sent another letter on 16.3.2010 requesting the complainant to send the original bills and final report which the complainant sent on 30.3.2010 but the Ops repudiated the claim vide letter dt. 6.7.2010. The complainant also got issued a legal notice on 8.9.2010 but did not get any response. The policy was in force on the date of theft of the trailer and rear side tyres of the tractor. Hence this complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 50,000/-
towards trailer and Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of rear side tyres of the tractor together with interest, compensation and costs.
3) The opposite parties filed their written version stating that the complainant made a belated claim on 28.1.2009 when actually the trailer and tyres were stolen on 15.1.2009. The complainant belatedly informed the Op about the theft on 28.1.2009 i.e., 13 days after the happening of the theft and that the police was also belatedly informed i.e., after four days. An FIR was registered on 19.1.2009. As per the terms and conditions of the policy the insured should give immediate notice to the police upon the occurrence of the theft. Condition No. 1 of the policy reads as follows :
Notice shall be given in written to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require every later claim summons and or processes or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in written to the company immediately by the insured who shall have acknowledged of any impending prosecutions inquest are fatal inquiry in receipt of any occurrence which may give raise to a claim under the policy in case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of claim under the policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company securing the conviction of the offender.
The opposite party contended that immediately means within a reasonable time having due regard to the nature and circumstances of the case. According to the terms and conditions of the policy in the case of theft where no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon the complainant to inform the police about the theft immediately, say within 24 hours, otherwise valuable time would be lost in tracing the vehicle. Similarly the insurers should also be informed within a day or two so that the insurer can verify as to whether any theft had taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced. As the complainant has breached condition No. 5 by not taking steps to safeguard the vehicle and leaving it in the fields and also did not intimate to the police or to the insurance company their repudiation is justified.
Therefore they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The Dist. Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e., Ex. A1 to A17 and Ex. B1 to B4 and the pleadings put forward dismissed the complaint.
5) Aggrieved by the said order the complainant preferred this appeal.
6) The facts not in dispute are that the complainant had taken a policy evidenced under Ex. A1 for his tractor for Rs. 4,34,411/- and trailer for Rs. 50,000/- under personal accident cover from 10.7.2008 to 9.7.2009. The insured declare the value of the vehicle at Rs. 4,36,411/-. It is the complainants case that on 15.1.2009 he had taken the tractor-trailer to the agricultural fields and kept it in the shed within the fencing but some unknown persons have stolen away the trailer and rear tyres of the tractor on the very same night. He had lodged the complaint to the police on 19.1.2009.
This delay of 4 days is explained by the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that it is because the farmer had made enquiries nearby with respect to loss and only then took steps to inform the police. It is the appellants case that though the policy covered the theft of the trailer and two tyres the opposite party repudiated it on the ground that intimation was delayed by 13 days thereby violated condition No. 1 of the policy. Ex. A4 is the letter by the opposite party dt. 27.2.2010 asking the complainant to send the original bills and cash receipts and final report from the court. Ex. B1 is the copy of the policy in which conditions for loss/theft are stated as follows :
1. Notice shall be given in written to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require every later claim summons and or processes or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in written to the company immediately by the insured who shall have acknowledged of any impending prosecutions inquest are fatal inquiry in receipt of any occurrence which may give raise to a claim under the policy in case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of claim under the policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company securing the conviction of the offender.
5. the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle insured from loss of damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle incurred or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured in the event of any accident and breakdown, the vehicle insured shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss if the vehicle insured by the driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be internally at the insureds own risk.
Ex.
B2 is the repudiation letter dt. 7.6.2010 wherein the Op repudiated the claim on the ground that the insurance company was belatedly informed after 13 days violating condition No. 1 of the policy and that the insured did not take reasonable steps to safeguard the tractor-trailer from loss. Though the Op did not establish by way of any documentary evidence that the insured did not take proper steps in safeguarding the vehicle, however, there is an admitted delay of 13 days in intimating the insurance company and four days in lodging FIR with the police in violation of terms and conditions of the policy.
7) The Apex Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal reported in IT 2004 (8) SC 8 has held that the terms of the 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 theft of a car, word immediately has to be construed strictly to make the insurance company liable to pay the compensation.
8) In the instant case the complainant did not intimate about the theft for a period of 13 days which could be fatal for investigation as it is a case of theft.
We also rely on the decision of National Commission in The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shri Dharam Singh in FA No. 426/2004 in which the National Commission held that the complainant did not report the theft of the vehicle for a period of 9 days to the insurance company and therefore the repudiation is justified.
9) We also rely on another judgment of Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha Civil Appeal No.6739/2010 decided on 17.8.2010, wherein the Apex Court has held that not informing the insurance company immediately after the theft deprives the insurance company of its legitimate right to investigate the matter and such a delay is fatal to the claim. Relevant observations of the Supreme Court are as under:-
Admittedly the respondent had not informed the appellant about the alleged theft of the insured vehicle till he sent letter dated 22.5.1995 to the Branch Manager. In the complaint filed by him, the respondent did not give any explanation for this unusual delay in informing the appellant about the incident which gave rise to cause for claiming compensation. Before the District Forum, the respondent did state that he had given copy of the first information report to Rajender Singh Pawar through whom he had insured the car and untraced report prepared by police on 19.9.1995 was given to the said Shri Rajender Singh Pawar, but his explanation was worthless because in terms of the policy, the respondent was required to inform the appellant about the theft of the insured vehicle. It is difficult, if not impossible, to fathom any reason why the respondent, who is said to have lodged First Information Report on 20.1.1995 about the theft of car did not inform the insurance company about the incident. In terms of the policy issued by the appellant, the respondent was duty bound to inform it about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident. On account of delayed intimation, the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same. Unfortunately, all the consumer foras omitted to consider this grave lapse on the part of the respondent and directed the appellant to settle his claim on non-standard basis. In our view, the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the respondent despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy.
(emphasis supplied)
10) Keeping in view the aforementioned reasons and judgements supra, we dismiss the appeal and confirm the order of the Dist. Forum. No costs.
1) _______________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER
2) ________________________________ MEMBER 28/03/2013 *pnr UP LOAD O.K.