State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance ... vs Maria Selvam, S/O. Shanmugavelraj ... on 13 September, 2013
IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MADURAI BENCH.
Present: Thiru.J.JAYARAM, M.A. M.L., Presiding Judicial Member
Thiru.S. SAMBANDAM, B.Sc., Member
F.A.No.274/2012
(F.A.No.963/2011 on the file of State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Chennai.)
(Against the order in C.C.No.17/2011, dated 10.08.2011 on the file of DCDRF,
Tirunelveli)
FRIDAY, THE 13th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013.
The Manager,
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited.,
45 & 46, Whites Road, Sundaram Towers,
Chennai - 600 014. Appellant/1st opposite party
Vs
1. Maria Selvam, S/o. Shanmugavelraj Kumar,
64/103, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Colony,
Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 1st Respondent/Complainant
2. The AR.A.S.P.V.P.V. Limited.,
10-D, Trivandrum Road,
Tirunelveli. 2nd Respondent/2nd opposite party
Counsel for the appellant/1st opposite party: Mr.S. Suresh, Advocate.
1st Respondent/Complainant : Mr.D. Venkatesh, Advocate.
2nd Respondent/2nd opposite party : Served. Called Absent.
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 11.09.2013 and on
hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records this
Commission made the following:
2
ORDER
Thiru. J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. This appeal is filed by the 1st opposite party against the order of the District Forum, Tirunelveli in C.C.No.17/2011, dated 10.08.2011 allowing the complaint against the 1st opposite party.
2. The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is the owner of the Maruthi Omni Van bearing registration No.TN-76-B-6602 and the complainant purchased the vehicle on availing loan of Rs.1,94,000/- from Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank and spent Rs.70,000/- on extra fittingts. On 25.11.2008, two unknown persons booked the vehicle to go to Trivandrum Airport from Thenkasi Bus-stand. The driver parked the vehicle near Thenmalai, near a tea-stall and went to the tea-stall at Kulathupuzha. Suddenly, the two persons who engaged the vehicle took away the vehicle and immediately the driver intimated the same to Anjal Police Station, Kerala State and searched for the vehicle but they could not trace the vehicle. Hence, the complainant lodged a complaint with Anjal Police Station but the Kerala Police refused to register a case. Hence, the complainant lodged a complaint with Thenkasi Police Station on 27.11.2008 and the police registered a case in crime No.1191/2008 and he intimated the same to the 1 st opposite party/insurer of the vehicle by sending a registered post on 28.11.2008. The 1st opposite party required the complainant to produce non-traceable certificate from police, final court order etc. Since the police did not issue non-traceable 3 certificate, the complainant filed a petition before the Hon'ble High Court and obtained non-traceable certificate. In spite of sending all the necessary documents, the 1st opposite party did not come forward to settle the claim which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. Hence, the complaint praying for direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,94,000/- towards the value of the vehicle and another sum of Rs.70,000/- towards extra fittings/interior designs with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 28.11.2008 which is the date of giving intimation and Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and also to pay costs.
3. According to the 1st opposite parity who is the insurer of the vehicle, theft of the vehicle was reported belatedly only on 01.12.2008. The vehicle was unlocked and unattended near a tea-stall and the vehicle was later found missing. The theft was reported to police belatedly only on 27.11.2008 after a delay of 2 days and the 1st opposite party was informed about the loss of vehicle after a delay of 5 days and therefore there is violation of policy conditions hence the complainant's claim was repudiated for valid reasons and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1 st opposite party and passed an order directing the 1st opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,73,000/- towards value of the vehicle and sum of Rs.30,000/- as 4 compensation for mental agony and to pay costs of Rs.5000/-. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the 1st opposite party has preferred this appeal.
5. The contention of the appellant/1st opposite party would be that there is violation of policy condition Nos. 1 and 5 in that, there was much delay in reporting theft to police station and to the 1st opposite party and also that the vehicle was parked unattended and unlocked without any care to safeguard the vehicle and that for these reasons the complainant is not entitled to benefit under the policy. Per contra, the 1st respondent/complainant would contend that he parked the vehicle near a tea-stall and went to have tea. It is pertinent to note that the engine was running and the key was intact in the vehicle when the complainant went to have tea. Therefore, it is evident that the complainant did not care to safeguard the vehicle and he has left the key in the vehicle and the engine was running, which amounts to negligence and carelessness on the part of the complainant. Further, there is delay of 2 days in reporting the theft to the police and 5 days in sending intimation to the 1st opposite party.
6. The 1st opposite party relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble National Consumer Commission. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co., Ltd., - Vs - M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal J.T. (2004) (8) SC 8 has held that terms of insurance contract has to be strictly interpreted and the natural meaning should be given to it. Further, the Hon'ble National Consumer Commission in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited - Vs - Trilochan Jane (First Appeal No.32 of 5 2005 dated 09.12.2009) has held that the delay in reporting theft is crucial in the matter of violation of policy conditions. This view has been further upheld by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Shri. Kuldeep Singh - Vs - IFCO Tokio General Insurance Co.,Ltd.,( R.P. No. 2982/2012 dated 18.01.2013.
7. The complainant has argued stating that the delay in lodging complaint was due to reluctance of the police officials to register a case. The complainant would further contend that no driver would expect that the passengers of the vehicle would snatch away the vehicle and so the allegation against him that he did not take reasonable care in safeguarding the vehicle is not correct. The complainant has relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited., Vs - Jugraj Singh reported in II (2013) CPJ 66 (NC) where it is held that the ground of fraud was not pleaded before the District Forum and hence the repudiation was not justified. The complainant further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,- Vs - Durga Carriers Pvt. Ltd., reported in I (2013) CPJ 212 (NC). In this case, the miscreants snatched the vehicle along with the records pertaining to the vehicle and the records could not be produced before the Insurance Company. Thus the facts of both the cases are different from that of the instant case before us and they have no relevance to the present case.
8. Therefore, we hold that there is violation of policy conditions of the insurance policy and therefore the claim of the complainant has been repudiated 6 for valid reasons and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party in repudiating the claim.
9. The District Forum has come to the erroneous conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the part of the 1st opposite party on the premise that the delay in reporting the theft to the police and sending intimation to the insurer/1st opposite party are justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. We do not agree with the finding and decision of the District Forum in allowing the complaint.
10. In view of our finding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party, the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside.
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum and the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs in this appeal.
12. The Registry is directed to hand over the Fixed Deposit Receipt made towards the mandatory deposit to the appellant/1st opposite party duly discharged with accrued interest.
Sd/-S. SAMBANDAM, Sd/-J. JAYARAM,
MEMBER. PRESIDNG JUDICIAL MEMBER.
INDEX: YES / NO
TCM/Mdu Bench/Orders- 2013/Sep