State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Royal Sundaram vs Gopalakrishnan.R, on 24 September, 2012
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/12/16 (Arisen out of Order Dated 23/11/2011 in Case No. CC/10/101 of District Pathanamthitta) 1. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co Ltd Sundaram Tower 45 & 46 Whites Road,Chennai Chennai TN ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Gopalakrishnan Kottarathil House,Mundappuzha,Ranni,Pathanamthitta Pathanamthitta Kerala ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
FIRST APPEAL 16/2012
JUDGMENT DATED: 24..9..2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. Royal Sundaram : APPELLANTS
Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.
Sundaram Towers 45 & 46 Whites Road,
Chennai.
2. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd,,
Cochin branch, KPCC Junction,
M.G.Road, Ernakulam.
Rep.by its Claims Manager G.Vinay Prakash
(By Adv.Manikantan Nair)
Vs.
1.Gopalakrishnan.R, : RESPONDENTS
Kottarathil House,
Mundappuzha,
Ranni, Pathanamthitta,
Pin-689 672.
2. Sundaram Finance Ltd.,
21 Patulos Road,
Chennai- 600 002.
(rep.by its Director)
3. Sundaram Finance Ltd.,1st floor,
Anil Bhavan,
YMCA Boat Jetty Road,
Alappuzha,(rep by its Manager).
4. Sundaram finance Ltd., Jesus Road Junction,
Nannuvakkad, Pathanamthitta
(rep.by its Manager)
(By Adv.R.Suja Madhav counsel for R2 to 4)
JUDGMENT
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants were opposite parties 1 and 2 in CC.101/10 in the CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The 1st respondent and his wife were the complainants. He was the registered owner of a maruti car bearing registration No.KL.3M/5365. He purchased the car availing a loan of Rs.1,60,000/- from the 3rd opposite party. Opposite parties 1 and 2 were the insurers of the car. It is alleged that while the insurance policy for the car with them was in force, on 4.10.08 the complainant was brutally assaulted by few goondas and they robbed his maruti car bearing Registration No.KL.3M/5365 and other valuables. The 1st complainant sustained grievous injuries and was admitted in the Taluk hospital, Ranni and later he was treated at Marthoma Medical Mission hospital, Ranni from 4.10.2008 to 6.10.08.The pathanamthitta police registered a crime under Sections 342,349 and 506(1),r/w Sec.34 of IPC in connection with the incident. The case was transferred to the Aranmula police for investigation as the place of occurrence was within the jurisdiction of the Aranmula police station. They have filed charge sheet in the said case. The first complainant informed the incident to opposite parties 1 and 3 on 8.10.08. As per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable to indemnify the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,17,000/- for the loss of his car. The complainants submitted claim before the 1st opposite party on 14.10.08. On receipt of the claim the 1st opposite party directed the complainant to produce four documents. Out of the above documents complainants submitted three documents. But they could not produce the remaining document ie, the final report in the criminal case as the final report was not submitted at that time. The police filed charge sheet in the case only on 4.6.10. Even after the lapse of 21 months after the submission of the insurance claim opposite parties 1 and 2 have not disbursed the claim to the 1st complainant. Opposite parties 3 to 5 from whom the loan was availed are compelling the complainants to discharge the loan. The non settlement of the complainants claim is a clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2. Hence the complaint.
2. Before the CDRF, Pathanamthitta opposite parties 1 and 2 filed joint version and 5th opposite party filed separate version. Opposite parties 1 and 2 contended that the complainant submitted a belated claim. The incident occurred on 4.10.08 but the claim was submitted only on 22.10.08. As per the terms and conditions of the policy loss or damage should be intimated immediately to the insurance company upon the happening of the incident. That was not done. Apart from that copy of the final report in the criminal case registered in connection with the incident is necessary for settling the claim. The 1st complainant failed to produce the copy of the final report despite intimations given to him to produce the same. As per the certificate issued by the Circle Inspector of police, Kozhenchery the investigation of the case is continuing and the police have not arrived at the conclusion that the vehicle is not recoverable. The failure to submit copy of the final report has delayed the consideration of the claim. By the failure to intimate the occurrence immediately, the opposite parties were prevented from investigating into the correctness of the incident. There was no deficiency in service on their part. Hence the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
3. The 5th opposite party contended that after availing loan on executing an agreement, after a while the complainant stopped remittance towards the loan amount and interest. Fifth opposite party was not aware of the criminal case. As per the agreement, first complainant is liable to pay the entire amount due to them. The 3rd opposite party is not colluding with the 1st opposite party as alleged. No exorbitant rate of interest and penalty were demanded from the complainants. Fifth opposite party has not threatened the complainant as alleged. The complainants have not suffered any damage by any of the acts of the 5th opposite party.
4. Before the Forum the first complainant gave oral evidence as PW1. Exts.A1 to A19 series were marked on his side. One witness was examined from the side of the opposite parties and Exts.B1 to B5 were marked. The Forum after considering the evidence adduced held that there was clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 and accordingly allowed the complaint. Aggrieved by the order the 1st and 2nd opposite parties have preferred this appeal. The correctness of the findings of the Forum requires scrutiny in this appeal.
5. Complainant/1st respondent admittedly purchased the car bearing Registration No.KL.3M/5365 by availing loan from the 5th opposite party by executing an agreement. The vehicle was admittedly insured with the appellants when the vehicle was allegedly robbed by some persons on 4.10.08. A crime was registered in connection with the incident which was later transferred to the Aranmula police station within whose jurisdiction the occurrence happened. There crime No.556/08 was registered under sections 342,349 and 506(1)r/w 34IPC. Admittedly the 1st complainant has submitted claim in connection with the loss of the car. The contention is that the submission of the claim was belated. The claim was submitted only on 22.10.08. The explanation is that 1st complainant was injured in the incident and he was admitted in the hospital. That caused the delay. It appears that the police was informed on 7.10.08 and the case was being investigated by them. There was delay of about 18 days only in intimating the incident to opposite parties 1 and 2. Under the above circumstances the Forum rightly found that there was no significant delay in reporting the incident to opposite parties. The further contention is that copy of the final report submitted in the case is necessary for the consideration of the claim. Copy of the final report was not submitted despite request. Hence the delay in considering the claim happened. It is seen that copy of the final report in crime No.556/08 of Aranmula police station was produced before the Forum and was marked as Ext.A9. It is seen from Ext.A9 that the final report was submitted before the JFCM No.I,Pathanamthitta only on 20.4.10. It further appears from the documents produced that the accused who committed the crime were known to the 1st complainant. Infact dispute regarding broker fees relating to a property sold led to the incident. Neverthless the car robbed from the 1st complainant could not be traced. Since final report was submitted, without tracing the car there is every reason to presume that the car is irrecoverably lost. So as per the terms of the insurance policy the appellants were bound to indemnify the 1st complainant. It is in the above background the Forum allowed the complaint. It appears that the appellants were reluctant to consider the claim for the reason that due to belated information given by first complainant they could not properly investigate the incident on their own. But as held already there was no inordinate delay in reporting the incident. Further there is no reason why the appellants should not accept the investigation conducted by the police. Under the above circumstances I find no reason to interfere with the conclusions of the CDRF, Pathanamthitta in CC.101/10 or the reliefs granted. In short the appeal is devoid merit and is liable to be dismissed.
In the result the appeal is dismissed but without costs.
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
ps
[ SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR] PRESIDING MEMBER