1. This is a petition filed by one Sri Monoranjan Debnath (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) against Manager, National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) U/S 12 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for recovery of money, compensation and other reliefs.
2. Facts and circumstances for filing of the aforesaid petition as narrated by the petitioner are as follows:-
The complainant is an Indian Citizen and being the owner of a Motorcycle bearing Registration No.AS-02/D-2451 which was duly insured with the opposite party National Insurance Company Limited vide Policy No.200203/31/11/6200000999, dated 27/05/2011 valid up to 26/05/2012. The complainant stated that the said motorcycle was stolen on last 31/03/2012 at 7.00 P.M. from the Main Road near R.K. Das Kerosen Oil Depot and thereafter, on 01/04/2012, the complainant lodged F.I.R. at Hojai Police Station vide Hojai Case No.92/12 and on dated 02/04/2012 also filed claim before the opposite party in connection with the stolen motorcycle. The complainant further stated that he submitted all the relevant document before the opposite party and submitted final police investigation report regarding his stolen motorcycle but the opposite party closed his claim for ever although there was no violation of policy condition on his part. Hence, the complainant filed this petition before this Commission seeking a direction to the opposite party to pay him the value of his lost motorcycle with other relief.
The opposite party filed written version denying all the allegation levelled against them by the petitioner. By its written version, the opposite party submitted that there is no cause of action for the petitioner to file the petition, that the petitioner failed to make out deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party submitted that the petitioner in spite of persistent request from the opposite party failed to submit required documents to substantiate his claim and settle the matter by the opposite party. The opposite party stated that the petitioner has failed to produce all the relevant documents within the stipulated time and the Registration number of the stolen vehicle mentioned in the F.I.R. did not tally with the number mentioned in final police investigation report and the complainant took unlimited time to produce the documents for which there is no option left before the opposite party but to close his claim case. Hence, there was no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Opposite party, therefore, prays for dismissal of the case of the complainant.
3. Upon pleadings of parties following points for decision and discussion come out:-
- Whether the opposite party being insurer of the lost motorcycle of the complainant bearing registration No.AS-02/D-2451 illegally closed his claim case pertaining to the said motorcycle and such conduct on the part of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for?
4. The complainant filed evidence in affidavit of one witness each and also exhibited several documents in support of his claim. The witness is cross-examined by the opposite party. The opposite party however, did not adduce any evidence in support of its written version.
5. Written argument filed by the complainant and perused the same.
6. Decision and reasons thereof:-
7. For the sake of brevity both the Point (i) & (ii) are taken jointly for discussion and decision.:-
The complainant as P.W.1 adduced evidence to the effect that he being the registered owner of motorcycle bearing registration No.AS-02/D-2451 duly insured the same with the opposite party i.e. National Insurance Company Limited and his said motorcycle was stolen on last 31/03/2012 at 7.00 P.M. from the main road near R.K. Das Kerosene Oil Dipot. His further evidence is that on 01/04/2012 he lodged F.I.R. at Hojai Police Station and on 02/04/2012 filed claim petition before the opposite party being insurer of his lost vehicle. He again deposed that he submitted all the relevant documents pertaining to his lost motor cycle but the opposite party after obtaining the final police investigation report illegally closed his claim case without settling his matter although there was no violation of the policy condition on his part. His further evidence is that on 04/09/2015, the opposite party by a letter informed him that his claim petition will not be reopen and the case is closed forever. The complainant as P.W.1 also deposed that due to close of his claim case, he suffered mentally and financially and hence, entitled for the relief as prayed for.
The opposite party in their written version submitted that in spite of persistent request from them, the complainant failed to submit required documents to substantiate his claim and settle the matter by the opposite party. The opposite party also submitted that the petitioner has failed to produce all the relevant documents within stipulated time and the Registration number of the stolen vehicle mentioned in the F.I.R. did not tally with the number mentioned in the final police investigation report and complainant took unlimited time to produce the documents for which there is no option left before the opposite party but to close his claim case. However, the opposite party failed to adduce any evidence in support of their pleas. Hon’ble Apex Court in many judicial pronouncement specifically stated mere filing of written statement is not sufficient unless supported by evidence. In the instant case the opposite party did not adduce any evidence in support of their written version for reasons best known to them. In view of above we are of the opinion that the that the complainant has successfully established that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
In result both the points for discussion and decision are answered in affirmative and goes in favour of the complainant.
O R D E R
8. In view of the above discussion, it is found that the petitioner has succeeded to prove that there was a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner U/S 12 of the Consumer protection is allowed on contest. Issue direction to the opposite party to pay the complainant the value of his stolen motorcycle as per terms and condition of the Policy bearing No.200203/31/11/6200000999 along with compensation of Rs.20,000/-Rupees Twenty Thousands)only with interest @ 12 per annum from today till realization.
Inform all the parties concern.
Given under the hand and seal of this Commission, we signed and delivered this Judgment on this 20th Day of April,2021.
