- Sri Balbinder Singh,
25A, Nandan Road,
P.S. Bhowanipore, Kolkata-25. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Poddar Court, Gate No.3, 7th Floor,
18, Rabindra Sarani,
P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata-1 and
GE Plaza Airport Road,
Yerwada, Pune-411006. ________ Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Order No. 26 Dated 03-06-2015.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant was the owner of two wheeler Bajaj brand scooter having chassis no.MD2DSZZ-NCF10586, engine no.DSGBNF90007. The said vehicle has been registered being no.WB 01Z-2353. The said vehicle was purchased sometimes in 2006. Copy of the smart card of the said vehicle has been annexed as annex-A with the petition of complaint by complainant. The aforesaid vehicle was insured with o.p. under insurance cover policy no.OG-12-2401-1802-00023076 for an insured value of Rs.25,435/-. Complainant duly paid the premium for the said vehicle and the insurance policy was valid from 26.10.10 to 25.10.11 and the said insurance policy has been continuing since 2006. Copy of the said insurance policy with the premium receipts has been annexed as annex-C series with the petition of complaint by complainant.
Complainant stated that on 1.2.08 when the said vehicle was parked at Nandan Road, Kolkata-25 within the jurisdiction of Bhowanipore P.S. was stolen and accordingly, complainant lodged a diary with the local police station. The police authority has conducted the enquiry of theft and complainant stated that the same is still in process. Copy of the said diary has been annexed as annex-D with the petition of complaint by complainant
Complainant subsequently lodged his claim with o.p. in respect of the theft of he vehicle. Copy of the letters in respect of the claim dt.1.9.11 and 21.9.11 have been annexed by complainant with the petition of complaint. Complainant stated that o.p. has repudiated the claim stating interalia that the keys of the vehicle is worn out and old vide letter dt.17.10.11 wherein it is also stated that complainant has caused contributory negligence in the aforesaid theft. After a great deal of persuasion complainant failed to obtain any claim from o.p. in respect of the theft of the vehicle in respect of having valid insurance policy from o.p. Under such condition complainant filed the instant case with the prayers contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
O.p. appeared in this case by filing w/v and contested the case. Ld. lawyer of o.p. submitted that they have repudiated the claim since, if the original keys were lost then complainant should take responsible steps to safeguard the vehicle and steps should be taken by complainant to ensure that the stolen keys. O.p. further stated that complainant had opted continuously use of worn out keys which concludes that complainant failed to maintain not in sufficient careful condition. Therefore, indirectly it is contributed in the theft of the vehicle. Besides, ld. lawyer of o.p. stated that they have issued a letter dt.21.9.11 addressed to complainant seeking clarification for delay in intimation, but complainant has not responded in regard to clarification of intimation of delay.
Ld. lawyer of o.p. also stated that nowhere in the record it appears that police has made any FRT u/s 379 IPC whereas complainant stated in his petition that the investigation is going on at the time of filing the case. So, enquiry has not yet completed by policy authority u/s 379 IPS as it is evident from the record. During hearing o.p. submitted that the terms and conditions in respect of the policy complainant is supposed to take reasonable care of the said vehicle to protect it from loss. Ld. lawyer of o.p. also cited by relying upon a decision passed by Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1999 SC 3282 in which Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy is binding and complainant is not entitled to any relief. The complainant is duty bound to obey the terms and conditions of the policy. Besides, ld. lawyer of o.p. also stated relying upon by an order passed by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.1362 of 2011 in which it is clearly stated that if there is only nine days delay in intimating insurance company about the theft of the vehicle in such cases claim is not payable. O.p. also submitted in relying a decision passed by Hon’ble National Commission in R.P. No.2413 of 2013 wherein Hon’ble Commission also held even if FIR has been lodged on the same date before the police station but if there is any delay in intimation to the insurance company the claim is not payable. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with reasons:
Upon considering the submissions of both the parties and on careful scrutiny of the entire materials on record, this Forum hold that o.p. has not made any deficiency of service in respect of non payment of any claim of theft of the vehicle in question since this Forum hold that no FRT has been filed by policy authority after investigation that there was any case u/s 379 IPC since it is evident from the petition of complaint that investigation is still going on. So, police has not come to the conclusion yet in respect of the cognigence in respect of u/s. 379 IPC.
This Forum hold that the case reference which have been cited by ld. lawyer of o.p. is very much tenable in respect of adjudication of the preset case. Hence, in relying upon judgment as referred by ld. lawyer of o.p. this Forum hold that complainant has failed to substantiate his case and is not entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
/o:p>
