West Bengal

Siliguri

02/S/2013

1) SRI SWAPAN KUMAR MANDAL, - Complainant(s)

Versus

1) ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., - Opp.Party(s)

23 Feb 2015

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 2/S/2013.                    DATED : 23.02.2015.                 

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

 

 

                      MEMBERS              : SMT. PRATITI  BHATTACHARJEE &

                                                              SRI PABITRA MAJUMDAR.

 

COMPLAINANT                      : SRI SWAPAN KUMAR MANDAL,

                                                              S/O Sri Sanatan Mandal,

                                                              R/O Gondog, P.O.- Kathapara,

                                                              P.S.- Dhupguri, Dist.- Jalpaiguri. 

                                                           

 

O.Ps.           1.                I.C.I.C.I. LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE

 CO. LTD.,                                                      

                                                             a Limited Company, having its registered

                                                             office at I.C.I.C.I. Bank Towers,

                                                             Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 034.

 

                                    2.                      THE BRANCH MANAGER (LEGAL),  

                                                             I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

                                                             Appeejay House, 15, Park Street,

                                                             Kolkata – 700 016.

 

 3.                     THE BRANCH MANAGER (LEGAL),

I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,  

Sevoke Road, P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri,

                                                             Dist.- Darjeeling.

                                                                                                                                                                      

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

FOR THE OP Nos.1, 2 & 3             : Sri Chinmoy Chakraborty, Advocate.

 

JUDGEMENT

 

The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that the complainant Sri Swapan Kumar Mandal purchased a motor cycle (Model – Hero Honda Hunk) having Engine No.KC13EDAGB04632, Chassis No.MBLKC13EDAGB04437, which was registered with Registering Authority, Jalpaiguri, vide Registration No.WB-72E-4322. The said motor

 

Contd......P/2

Consumer Case No.2/S/2013

-:2:-

 

 

vehicle was insured with the OP I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. vide Certificate No.3005/13086253/30077/000 which was valid on and from 30.03.2011 to midnight of 29.03.2012.  Insurance premium was Rs.1,291/-.  That on 22.11.2011 at about 4.30 p.m. the said motor cycle was stolen by some miscreants at Teesta Cannel, Korola Bridge.  Thereafter, the complainant lodged a written complaint before the local Police Station and to that end a specific case being Bhaktinagar P.S. Case No.1429/11 dated 23.11.2011 u/s 379 of I.P.C. was started.  On 01.12.2011 the complainant informed the matter to the R.T.O., Jalpaiguri for taking necessary steps.  On 03.12.2012 the complainant lodged theft claim with the OPs vide Claim No.MOTO 2282501.  Thereafter, the I.O. of Bhaktinagar P.S. submitted the Final Report being Bhaktinagar P.S. F.R.T. No.629/12 dated 06.03.2012 under Section 379 of I.P.C. before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri.  That surprisingly, on 10.09.2012 the complainant visited the office of the OP No.3 to know about the fate of his claim and then OP No.3 informed them about their inability to release the said claim.  The complainant through his ld advocate sent lawyer’s notice dated 20.11.2012 upon the OPs demanding the said claim, but to no avail.  The complainant thus filed this case praying for Rs.50,000/- as value of the said motor cycle, Rs.5,000/- for loss of time, Rs.10,000/- for mental agony, harassment and suffering cause by the OPs, and Rs.10,000/- for cost of litigation and some other reliefs.

OP Nos.1, 2 & 3 have contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations filed by the complainant.  OPs have stated that it is fact that the complainant lodged the theft claim to them and the complainant informed them that complainant purchased the motor cycle with the financial assistance of the Financer Family

 

Contd......P/3

Consumer Case No.2/S/2013

-:3:-

 

Credit Ltd.  The positive case of the OPs is that compensation amount of Rs.49,983/- has been paid on 30^th October, 2012 by a cheque, vide cheque no.35830 to the said financer of the complainant and the said cheque was encashed by the financer of the complainant.  The complainant has no right to claim compensation from the insurance complainant.  The complainant should claim from the financer including compensation as prayed for on account of loss of time, mental agony, interest and legal cost and expenses.  Hence the complaint should be dismissed.    

The complainant has filed some documents. 

1.       Written complaint of theft (Xerox).

2.       Formal F.I.R.

3.       Final Report under Section 173 Cr. PC.

4.       Intimation letter to RTO, Jalpaiguri.

5.       Certificate of Registration (Xerox).

6.       Certificate of Insurance Policy.

7.       N.O.C from the Financer.

8.       Life Time Tax token (Xerox).

9.       Registration of theft claim.

10.     Questionnaire for theft claims.

11.     Indemnity cum declaration on undertaking, as requested by the OP (Xerox). 

Points for consideration

 

1.       Whether the complainant purchased the motor cycle which was theft.

2.       Is the complainant entitled to get compensation as prayed for?

 

Decision with reason

 

The two issues are taken up together for the brevity of discussion.

 

Contd......P/4

Consumer Case No.2/S/2013

-:4:-

 

The purchase of motor vehicle has been admitted by the OPs.  The vehicle in question was purchased through financer.  The insured Swapan Kumar Mandal filed some papers, motor theft claim form, one office copy of letter addressed to RTO, and some numbers of form 28, 29, 30, 35 blank, but signed by Swapan Kumar Mandal, one affidavit by Swapan Kumar Mandal, one indemnity bond singed by Swapan Kumar Mandal.  One letter issued by ICICI Lombard addressed to Swapan Kumar Mandal to file five numbers of documents.

It appears from the written version of the OP Nos.1, 2 & 3 dated 11.05.2013 that these OPs had paid Rs.49,983/- on 30.12.2012 vide cheque no.35830 to the said financer of the complainant and the said cheque was encashed by the financer of the complainant. 

This claim was instituted on 10.01.2013, but the complainant did not state any fact relating to the payment of that money.  Moreover, this financer has not been made party here.  The complainant did not utter any word regarding purchased through financer.  The complainant did not raise any objection regarding to the fact supplying by OPs in para no.11 regarding payment of Rs.49,983/-.  It is stated by the OPs in para 17 that the complainant should claim from the financer including the compensation on account of loss of time, mental agony and interest.

On the premises above, this Forum is of opinion that complainant’s financer got the price of the motor cycle.  So, he is debarred from claiming further rights from the insurance company.

Hence, it is

                    OR D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.2/S/2013 be, and the same is, hereby dismissed on contest, but without cost. 

Copies of the judgment be given to the parties free of cost.   

 

 

   -Member-                          -Member-                           -President-