Ld. Advocate(s)

                                    For Complainant: Prodip Banerjee

                                    For OP/OPs : Abdur Rahim Seikh

            Date of filing of the case                       :06.06.2023

            Date of Disposal  of the case               :29.04.2024

Final Order / Judgment dtd.29.04.2024

 The basic fact of the case of the complainant is that the complainant  along with their friends namely Parimal Mondal and Shyamal Das went to  Big Bazar on 10.11.2020. After placing the vehicle of the complainant  at that place  they went to the market  after keeping the driver Moslem Mondal inside  the vehicle  at about 9 p.m.. Thereafter,  they returned  back to the spot and found that the vehicle was not in the spot  and could not trace out . Despite  thorough  searching  the complainant could not contact  with the driver. On the next day one person  from the house of the  driver  informed to the  complainant  that while the car was standing  in front of the Big Bazar, certainly  5 persons snatched  the car  at the point of fire arms on the head of the driver  and took the said car to Jharkhand  and dropped  the driver  out of the  vehicle  at about 5 a.m  after fastening  the hands , legs and mouth of the driver.  The miscreants  also  snatched  the D.L, money bag  and  other documents  of the driver.  In the next morning  the local people rescued the driver after  removing all the obstacles  and the driver  came to know from those peoples that  he is  in Nabin-nagar Jharkhand . Subsequently,  the driver informed  the matter to Berhampore . The complainant  thereafter,  lodged FIR at Jharkhand  P.S but they opined  that it should be lodged  at Kotwali P.S. When the  said complaint  was  lodged  at Kotwali P.S., they refused to  accept. The complainant , therefore,  filed a case u/s 156(3); of CRPC before the Ld. C.J.M, Krishnagar vide FIR 949/2020 dated 09.12.2020. Kotwali P.S investigated the case and submitted  final report  on 22.06.2021. Subsequently,  one person demanded  Rs.9,00,000/- over phone  from the complainant  on 13.11.2020 otherwise  the vehicle  would be sold . The complainant  informed about  the said hijacking  of the vehicle  to the OP but they repudiated the claim  of the complainant  on 24.12.2022. Therefore,  the complainant  issued Advocate’s  letter to OP No. 1 on 23.02.2023. Thus  the OPs have  adopted unfair trade practice  with the complainant  by not paying the insurance money  due to such acts of the OPs the complainant  was harassed  and suffered mental pain and agony. So, the complainant prayed for an award  of Rs.11,89,434/- for loss of vehicle  and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental pain and agony and litigation cost.

OP NO. 1 preferred  not to contest the case and as such it is heard ex-parte against  them vide order no.4 dated 04.08.2023. OP NO.2 contested the case by filing  W/V wherein they denied each and every allegation of the complaint. 

The OP No.2 M/S Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Service Limited  challenged the case as not maintainable  in law  and fact, bad for defect of parties.  The positive defence case of OP No.2 is that the complainant  approached  the OP No.2 to seek financial assistance  in order to  purchase a Mahindra Scorpio vehicle on hypothecation after  verifying the  credential  loan of Rs.10,00,000/- along with finance charge  of Rs.3,77,985/- , total Rs.13,77,985/- was sanctioned  vide loan agreement  no.5412646 dated 08.05.2018 which was payable  in 64 monthly EMI of Rs.22,500/- per month  from the statement  of loan  account  it is clear  that the  borrower  Ashim Ghosh  failed  to repay the instalment since November, 2022 and sum of Rs.7,70,797/- along with additional interest  of Rs.3,70,429/- plus Rs.4,500/- as cheque  bouncing  charge as on 04.07.2023 is outstanding  from the complainant. OP NO.2 has no nexus  with  OP NO.1. It is the prerogative  of the insurance  company  to adjudicate  the claim on the basis of merits  and the OP No.2 has nothing to  say  about deciding  the claim. The  complainant  expressly  agreed to  the terms and conditions  of the agreement and keep  the charged  asset in good condition.  The lender  is not concerned  with the merits of any claim lodged by the borrower  with the insurance company  for the said product  or in case of any such claim being repudiated  by the insurance company. The privity  of contact for the said  insurance policy shall be between the  borrower  and insurance company  subject  to hypothecation  clause as per  the policy  of insurance. The complainant  failed to make out any case of consumer dispute  as per the C.P Act. The OP NO.2 claimed that the case is liable to be dismissed.

On the basis pleadings of the parties the Commission  considers  it necessary to ascertain the following  points  for proper adjudication  of this case.

Points for Determination

Point No.1.

Whether the  present case is maintainable  in law  and fact.

Point No.2.

Whether the complainant  is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

Point No.3.

          To what other relief if any the complainant is entitled to get.

Decision with Reasons

Point No.1.

The OP No.1 preferred not to contest the case  and as such it is heard ex-parte against them. However,  Ld. Advocate for the  OP No.1 in course  of argument  submitted  that OP No.1 has not filed  any W/V but there is  an opportunity  to argue on law points.

The OP No.2 challenged the case  as not maintainable on the ground that it is barred by law of limitation.

After perusing the pleadings  of the parties  it transpires  that the cause of action for the present case  is claimed to have arisen on 24.12.2022 when the claim of the complainant was repudiated. The present case is filed  on 06.06.2023 , so it is well  within the limitation period and as such the case is not barred by limitation. The parties to the case reside  within the  territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. The amount of relief claim  by the complainant  also falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction  of this Commission.

Accordingly,  the present case is not barred by any provisions  of law.

Consequently, point no.1 is answered in affirmative  on the behalf of the complainant.

Point No.2&3.

Both the points are taken  up together  for brevity and convenience of discussion  since there is a close link between the two.

The complainant  in order to  substantiate the case  adduced both oral  evidence in the form of evidence on affidavit  and documentary  evidence. The complainant  proved the following documents  to substantiate the case:-

Annexure-1 is the letter issued  by the complainant  to the Magma  HDI General Insurance Company in which  the complainant  stated that  there was no delay in lodging the claim and further claim  for payment  of the insurance money.

Annexure-2 is the  another letter regarding  claim of insurance  to the OP No.1 Magma HDI General Insurance.

Annexure-3 is the  anther letter to S.P, Nadia  regarding  the theft  of the vehicle  and investigation  of the matter. The complainant also submitted another  letter to Mahindra Finance  about  information  regarding  hijacking  of the said vehicle. A letter  of advocate  dated 23.02.2023 to OP NO.1 Magma  Insurance  is also proved  by the complainant  through which the claim  interest was raised.

          The complainant  further proved the certified copy of the  final report  of  the  case  FIR  No.949/2020  dated  03.12.2020.

The FIR of the  said case dated 10.12.2020 vide Kotwali  P.S 949/2020 dated 09.12.2020 u/s 385/379/34 IPC is proved. The complainant also  proved the  certified copy case of before the  Ld. C.J.M, Krishnagar u/s 156(3) CRPC.

Thus the complainant proved almost  all the major documents to substantiate  his claim.

The OPs  claimed that there is  a delay  in the matter. They did not  deny about the coverage of the insurance.  The defence plea  is that the valuation of insurance is Rs.10,00,000/- subject to 10% depreciation.  They further  contended  that  in case  theft of vehicle  the insured  shall  immediate notice to the police  and co-operate with the company . In the instant case  there is a delay  of about  625 days  and FIR was lodged after 30 days .

Argument  is not sufficient in as much as  the complainant  seems to have  explained  the delay in lodging  the FIR. It is revealed  from the  documents that  the incident  took place  in outside state after initial hijacking  in the state of the complainant. The complainant  duly explained  the delay . The OPs could not  discard the specific evidence  of the complainant in this regard  by  cross-examining the complainant  or by adducing  any evidence  on the part of OP NO.1.

In fact  the case has been decided to be heard ex-parte  against OP No.1.  The defence plea  taken by  the OP No.1 in their  BNA is actually beyond  the scope of consideration in as much as if their plea  is accepted  then the complainant  would be  deprived  of getting  the opportunity  to cross-examine the OP NO.1. The  OP NO.1 even  did not file  any written version  to establish  any defence case.

The OP NO.2 contended  that the said vehicle  was purchased for commercial purpose but the complainant  categorically  stated  in his complaint  that he had been using that  vehicle  for his personal use. There is  no evidence  that the said vehicle has been  used for commercial purpose or that any amount of rent  has been  collected or hiring charge  has been received by using  the said vehicle . So, the defence plea  that it is used  for commercial purpose stands not proved.

The complainant  further  proved the registration  certificate of the vehicle wherein  it is categorically  stated that  ownership type of the vehicle is individual and class of vehicle is omnibus  (Private use). The insurance document  of Magma  HDI  also discloses  that the period of insurance  is 07.01.2020 to 06.01.2021. The incident  of theft  took place  on 10.11.2020 that is within the  validity  of the insurance  policy. The documents further discloses  that the alleged   incident  took place  on 10.11.2020 and it was informed to the Kotwali P.S on 17.11.2020 along with  the notice  to S.P, Krishnagar, Nadia on 17.11.2020 , so the delay  cannot be said to be inordinate  delay. The complainant  further informed  the matter to the financer;  Mahindra Finance  on 23.11.2020.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant  argued that  rejection  of claim  mere on the ground  of delay  has been vehemently   condemned  by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

In this regard he referred  to decision  reported  in  IV (2017) CPJ 10 (SC) wherein Hon’ble  Supreme Court  held that delay in intimation –claim repudiated / deficiency  in service. Decision of insurer to reject  claim has to be based  on valid ground. – Rejection of claim  purely on technical  ground in  a mechanical manner will  result in loss  of confidence  of policy holder  in insurance industry – if reason  in delay in making  claim is satisfactory  it cannot be rejected.

The said case law is relied on.

The OPs could not cite any counter case law against the said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant  further referred  to another case law  reported in I (2023) CPJ 147 (WB).  It was decided in  that case law that  delay in lodging FIR for theft  of vehicle and repudiation  of claim – when the  insured  informed the theft to concerned  P.S and lodged FIR mere delay  in informing insurance  company  about a theft cannot be a good ground  to deny  the claim of insurer – repudiation  of claim is not proper.

The said case law is relied on .

The OPs could not  file any counter case law to discard  the aforesaid case law.

Thus having assessed the entire  evidence  in the case record and  in the backdrop  of the discussion made hereinabove  the Commission comes to the finding  that the complainant  proved the  case upto the hilt.

Accordingly,  point no. 2&3 are answered  in affirmative in favour  of the complainant.

In the result  the complaint case succeeds on contest  and ex-parte with cost.

Hence,

                                        It is

Ordered

that the complaint case no.CC/59/2023 be and the same is allowed on contest against  OP No.2 and Ex-parte  against OP No.1 with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand). The complainant do get an award for a sum of Rs.11,89,434/- (Rupees eleven lakh eighty nine thousand four hundred thirty four) for loss of vehicle, Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) towards compensation for mental pain and agony and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) towards litigation cost. OP No.1 is directed to  pay  Rs.12,89,434/- (Rupees twelve lakh eighty nine thousand four hundred thirty four) to the complainant and OP No.2 is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) to the complainant  towards cost within  30 days  from the date of passing the final order failing  which the entire award money shall carry an interest  @12% p.a from the date of passing the final order till the date of its realisation.

All Interim Applications  (I.A) stand disposed of  accordingly.

D.A to note in the trial register.

The case is accordingly disposed of.

Let a copy of this final order be supplied to both the parties at free of costs.                   

Dictated & corrected by me

 ............................................

                PRESIDENT

(Shri   HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)                                   ................ ..........................................

                                                                                                                          PRESIDENT

                                                                                              (Shri   HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)

I  concur,

.......................................                                              

          MEMBER                                                                    

(  SHRI NIROD  BARAN   ROY  CHOWDHURY)