DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KENDUJHAR
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO 13 OF 2017
Smt. Golap Barik, aged about 49 years,
W/o: Jogendra Barik,
At/Post: Malada, P.S: Bamebari,
Dist- Keonjhar…………………………………………………Complainant
Vrs.
1. Branch Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Keonjhar Branch,
Near RTO Office Keonjhar,
P.O: Keonjhargarh, Dist- Keonjhar
2. The Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Gaffer Colony, Uditnagar,
Rourkela……………………………………………………………...Op. Parties
Present:
Shri B.N.Patra,President
Sri. B.B.Das,Member
Advocate for complainant- Mohan Parida G.Jena, and Associate
Advocate for O.Ps - P.K Pothal
Date of filing- 07.03.2017 Date of order- 12.08.2022
Sri B.B Das (Member)
The complainant is the Registered owner of one Truck bear No.-OR09 P 5595 having Chasis No.- MAT448045BIE63139105 and engine No.- B591803111E6139105. The vehicle is duly insured on payment of Rs.34486/- vide Policy No. 345505/31/2014/2613 which is valid from 04.08.2013 to 03.08.2014. On 09.01.2014 the driver of truck left the vehicle at the house of his paternal uncle and instructed one Bastia Kumar Sahu @ Muna to keep eye on the vehicle . On the next day when he returned from his village Banua did not find the Truck at the spot .So, he lodged FIR before the concern Police Station which has been registered vide Police Station Case No.40 dtd.30.06.2015 U/s 381 IPC against said Muna @ Bastia Kumar Sahu.
The complainant has lodged claim before OP No.-1 vide claim No.345505/31/2014/000144 on dt. 17.11.2015 with all relevant papers. The vehicle was purchased being financed by Bank of Baroda who has also requested the insurance company vide letter No.-2015-16/10 dt. 02.11.2015 to pay the claim amount. All turned in vain.
The OP.No.-2 entered in appearance and filed his version before the Forum/commission . The sole contention of the Op-2 is that the FIR was lodged after long lapse of 11th day from the date of incident . The Ops had processed all the relevant papers to its Regional Office towards claim amount. The Ops repudiated the claim of complainant due to violation of policy term and condition (s).
The complainant relies upon the following documents .
- Oriental Insurance claim letter (Xerox)
- Motor claim form of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd(Xerox)
- Xerox copy of Policy(Xerox)
- FIR copy with charge sheet (Xerox)
- Insurance Policy (Xerox)
- Retail Invoice (Duplicate ) (Xerox)
- R.C Book (Xerox)
The Ops rely upon the following documents .
- Application of Golap Barik against theft truck(Xerox)
- Final investigation report of OP(Xerox)
Both the parties argued at length in support their case . One perusal of documents it is found that the vehicle in question was duly insured before the OP.No-1 . The FIR was lodged before the concerned Policed Station on dt.20.01.2014 . The documents filed on behalf of complainant before the OP No.-1 i.e letter of correspondence in support of claim amount etc.
On the bare perusal of the documents it is seen that the insured vehicle has been stolen but mere delay in intimating the theft before the so-called insurance company does not throw the claim of complainant in any manner . Once theft is proved by the complainant through documentary evidence like FIR and the criminal case records , the complainant is entitled to get relief of claim .
The complainant relies upon the following authority in support of his case . In the decision National Insurance Co. Vrs Nitin Khandewal the Apex court in 3409/08 (Civil APL) observed that “ In case of theft insurance Co. has to settle the claim on non-standard basis i.e 75% of the claim. Similarly , National commission order in National Co. Ltd Vrs Shree Premchand on 12.03.2021 to the effect that which are not falling strictly within the limitation as to use the clause in the Policy such claim should be settled maximum of 75%. On the other hand, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaina Construction Company Vrs. Oriental Insurance Co. in Civil Appl. No.-1069/2022 in para-20 observed that “ Mere delay in intimating the insurance co. about the occurrence of theft can not be a ground to deny the claim of the insured”.
On verification of the insurance Policy it is found that the valuation of vehicles is of Rs.13,00000/- on dt. 02.08.2013. And the occurrence day of theft is on dt.09.01.2014. As per terms and conditions of the Policy the claim value might be reduced considering the valuation of question. But in the peculiar circumstances of the case and the observations of the Authority (which has been filed by the complainant ), the complaint is entitled to receive 75% of the total valuation of vehicle in question (i.e Rs.13,00000/-).
Hence ordered that the Op-2 shall pay a sum of Rs.9,75,000/- towards valuation of the vehicle in question and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and harassment within one month of this order, if failed , the complainant is at liberty to realize the entire amount i.e Rs.9,75,000.00 + Rs.15,000.00 as interest of @ 6% P.A from the date of Judgment of this case till final realization. Under above circumstances there is no cost of litigation.
The order pronounced in open Commission today i.e on 12th August 2022.
Free copy be supplied to parties, if applied for.
Pronounced on 12.08.2022
I agree
( Sri B. B. Das) ( B.N Patra )
Member (President)
DCDRC,Keonjhar DCDRC,Keonjhar
Dictated & Corrected by
( Sri B. B. Das)
Member
DCDRC,Keonjhar
