Golla Abhiram, S/o G... v. The Branch Manager, ...

2

000/00, dated 27-02-20219 to 26-02-2020. On 15-03-2019 the complainant parked vehicle at his house compound at 9:30 p.m., and wake up in the morning at 5:00 a.m., the complainant not found his bike in his compound, some unknown persons stolen the vehicle. The complainant searched near and dear, thereafter he informed and given complaint on same day i.e., 16-3-2019 before Police Station, Gadwal town and requested to take necessary action. Basing on complaint the Police registered a Crime No.54/2019 U/Sec.380 of IPC, dated 16-03-2019, same also informed to the opposite party on mail about the theft of his vehicle and gave information to the opposite party, submitted concerned copies i.e., R.C., Driving Licence, insurance copy, Aadhar Card, FIR and requested to settle the claim, but the opposite party postponed the matter day to day. The complainant approached the opposite party number of times for settlement of claim but the opposite party postponed day to day, finally sent repudiation letter on 03-12-2019 with flimsy grounds without baseless, due to that the complainant suffered a lot. The opposite party not settled the claim, it is nothing but unfair trade practice and cheating of customers, due to that the complainant suffered financially and mentally. Therefore prayed this Commission as above with appropriate compensation and costs.

3. The opposite party received notices and filed written version as under:-

The material allegations and averments made in the complaint under counter are neither true nor correct, as such the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. There is no privity of contract between this opposite party and the complainant, hence this opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant as claimed. The complainant is not a consumer as defined U/Sec.2 (d) of Consumer Protection Act and does not come under the purview of this Commission under consumer dispute as envisaged in Sec.2 (e) of Consumer Protection Act, the contract of insurance does not come under the purview of sale of Goods as defined under Sec.2 (i), hence the complaint may be dismissed as not maintainable. This opposite party is not aware of purchased two wheeler, but it is admitted that the vehicle is insured with our company vide policy No.3361/00943010/000/00, dated 27-02-20219, the same was in force till 26-02-2020, issued in subject to the terms, conditions, exceptions and limitations thereof and the confirmation of compliance of

3

Sec.64 VB of the Insurance Act, 1938. This opposite party specifically denies that on 15-03-2019 at 9:30 p.m., the complainant had parked the motorcycle in the compound of his house bearing No.1-3-100/F, near SVM Degree College, situated at Bheemnagar, on 16-03-2019 when the complainant was intending to go out at 5:00 a.m., he noticed his bike was stolen by some unknown persons, the complainant may be put to strict proof of the same with documentary evidence. It is noticed and observed by our investigator that the complainant parked his vehicle outside of the house gate and left the vehicle negligently and unattended. The opposite party came to know about the lodging of a complaint to the police regarding the theft of the vehicle only on 4-4-2019 when the complainant gave information of theft of the vehicle to our company, there is a delay of 19 days in giving information of theft of the vehicle to this opposite party and which has prejudiced the possibilities of recovery of the vehicle and which constitutes serious breach of condition No.1 and 8/9 of insurance policy and the same is also informed to the complainant through letter dated 3-12-2019. This opposite party also denies that the complainant informed to our company by an e-mail message, however, the complainant may be put to strict proof of the same by filing the copy of the e-mail addressed to our company. To send an intimation of theft to this opposite party immediately on such happening, but there was a delay of 19 days in informing the theft. It is also submitted that as per the policy issued, the insured took the policy by declaring the value of the vehicle at Rs.75,000/- only, hence in the event of the Court coming to a conclusion that this opposite party is liable to pay compensation, it should not exceed the said amount, therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party, hence the claim of the complainant is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed.

4. During the enquiry, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8 documents. The opposite party filed evidence affidavit of Ms. Akashipu Anupriya, Manager and got marked Ex.B-1 document.

5. Heard the arguments.

4

6. The points for consideration and determination of the case are:

(i) Whether the complainant is a 'Consumer' as defined U/Sec.2(7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019?

(ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party as alleged?

(iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for by him?

(iv) To what reliefs?

7. Point No.1:- Before going to facts of the case, the preliminary objection raised by the opposite party as there is no privity of contract between this opposite party and the complainant and the complainant is not a consumer as defined U/Sec.2 (7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the complaint does not come under the purview of this Commission under consumer dispute as envisaged in Sec.2 (8) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. To clarify above objection raised by the opposite party this Commission relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Canara Bank Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and Others", dated 06-02-2020, held that "the beneficiaries of the policies taken out by the insured are also 'Consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, even though they are not parties to the contract of insurance. The definition of 'Consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act is very wide and not only includes a person who hires or avails of the services for consideration but also includes the beneficiary of such services who may be a person other than the person who hires or avails of services. Even though they were not directly involved in undertaking the services of the insurance company, they were certainly the beneficiary to the same". Hence the complainant is a 'Consumer' and this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Accordingly, the policy is issued in the name of the complainant, hence there is no question to raise.

8. Point Nos.2 & 3:- There is no dispute that the complainant is owner of two wheeler bearing Yamaha FZS V2 vide No.TS 33 B 1248 on February, 2018 and said vehicle is insured with the opposite party vide policy No.3361/00943010/000/00, valid from 27-02-2019 to 26-02-2020.

5

9. The issue in dispute is that on 16-03-2019 some unknown persons stolen his above vehicle, which the complainant given complaint to Police and registered FIR vide Crime No.54/2019. Whether the complainant gets benefits under the subject policy.

We perused the complaint, counter and documents pertain to case record.

10. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a two wheeler in the month of February, 2018, vide Yamaha FZS V2 bearing No.TS 33 B 1248 for a sum of Rs.1,20,700/- which is also insured with the opposite party vide policy No.3361/00943010/000/00, valid from 27-02-20219 to 26-02-2020. On 15-03-2019 at about 9:30 p.m., when he parked his vehicle at his house compound, later next day morning when he saw, his vehicle was stolen by some unknown persons, immediately on the same day i.e., 16-03-2019 he registered a complaint before P.S. Gadwal Town vide FIR No.54/2019 U/Sec.380 of IPC, and also informed to the opposite party on mail about the theft of his vehicle and submitted concerned documents to settle the claim. But the opposite party company was repudiated the claim of the complainant by sending a letter dated 3-12-2019. Therefore the complainant approached this Commission for above remedies along with compensation and costs.

11. The opposite party company repudiated the claim of the complainant only on the ground that there is a delay of 19 days in giving information of theft of the vehicle to this opposite party company which constitutes breach of condition No.1 and 8/9 of insurance policy by not intimating the alleged theft immediately, hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, therefore requested to dismiss the complaint.

12. Coming to the facts of the case, it is true as per Ex.A-1, the complainant is a owner of vehicle bearing No.TS 33 B 1248 and as per Ex.A-2 that the vehicle is insured with the opposite party company with validity from 27-02-2019 to 26-02-2020 which is admitted by the opposite party. As per Exs.A-3 and A-4 reveals that said vehicle was stolen on 16-03-2019 by some unknown persons. At the time of stolen of vehicle, the insurance policy is in force, hence the complainant given information to

6

the opposite party to get some benefits from the insurance company. The opposite party was repudiated the claim of the complainant due to breach of terms and conditions of the said policy. The opposite party taken plea as the complainant given information after lapse of 19 days, which as per terms and conditions of policy, the condition No.1, notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately. Accordingly, there was a delay in giving information to insurance company after theft of the vehicle. However, the complainant has lodged the complaint on the same day and investigation was carried out by the Police, final report was filed and Hon'ble Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal given order dated 07-02-2020 as "Undetected" as per Ex.A-8, thereby one thing is very much clear that theft of the vehicle is genuine, no doubt that vehicle was stolen when it was parked to the complainant house compound.

13. When the complainant informed theft of vehicle to concerned Police Station, Gadwal and lodged complaint immediately, then mere delay in intimating insurance company cannot be good ground to deny the claim of insured. Incident is very genuine, repudiation of claim of the complainant is not at all correct and proper. In this respect, we can rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., & Another", Civil Appeal No.653/2020, dated 24-01-2020, (against the order of Hon'ble National Commission) held that "mere delay in intimating to the insurance company about the theft of the vehicle should not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claim which has been otherwise proved to be genuine. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is genuine and repudiation by the opposite party is not correct, hence the complainant is entitled of claim". In support of his case, the opposite party relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission vide R.P.No.1054/2010, but we taken reliance of updated Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 24-01-2020, which is purely applicable to this present complaint.

14. The complainant is failed to produce the invoice bill/receipt of purchased vehicle to clarify the value of the theft vehicle, hence as per Ex.A-2, IDV (insured declared value) of vehicle is Rs.75,000/- is liable to be allowed with interest and costs. The complainant prayed Rs.1,00,000/-

7

compensation, how he entitled for such huge amount, failed to clarify, hence we are not awarding any compensation under above head.

15. Point No.4:- In the result, the complaint is "Allowed" in part, directing the opposite party to pay IDV (Insured Declared Value) of vehicle Rs.75,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of complaint i.e., from 24-12-2020 to till realization and also to pay Rs.3,000/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant within (45) days from the date of this order.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 9^th

day of May, 2023.

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-

MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT

Appendix of evidence List of Witness examined

On behalf of Complainant: On behalf of Opposite Party:

- Nil - - Nil -

List of documents marked:-

On behalf of Complainant:-

Ex.A-1: Photostat copy of R.C. Ex.A-2: Photostat copy of Insurance Policy Schedule, dt.27-2-2019. Ex.A-3: Photostat copy of Complaint, dt.16-3-2019. Ex.A-4: Photostat copy of F.I.R., dt.16-3-2019. Ex.A-5: Photostat copy of E-Mail, dt.4-4-2019. Ex.A-6: Photostat copy of Repudiation Letter, dt.3-12-2019. Ex.A-7: Photostat copy of Bank Statement of Account, dt.25-11-2020. Ex.A-8: Photostat copy of Order issued by JFMC, Gadwal, dt.7-2-2020.

On behalf of OP:

Ex.B-1: Photostat copy of Terms and Conditions of Two-wheeler Policy.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT

8

Case No.__________________________ Date of Disposal: _______________________ Free copy of order delivered to Complainant/Opposite Party

by hand on: _________________________ Dis.No.___________________, Dt._____________________ Copy to:

1. Sri R. Govardhan Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant.

2. Sri M. Jagannatha Reddy, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite party.