DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 16th May, 2016
: J U D G M E N T :
The brief fact of the case is that the complainant purchased a motor cycle bearing No. WB/52T/2653 and chasis No. MD634KE47D2K23244, Engine No. OE4KD2513630. The complainant has also obtained an insurance policy being No. OG-14-2468-1802-00000805 from OP Insurance Company through agent Kakuli Ghosh, OP No. 2 in the instant case for the insurance of the said motor cycle which covers the period on and from 22.10.2013 to 21.10.2014. On 09.12.2013 the said vehicle was stolen away and over the said incident, Santipur P.S. started a case vide Santipur P.S. case No. 724/2013 dtd. 20.12.2013 U/S 379 IPC. Thereafter the complainant informed the said matter in the office of OP Insurance Company. OP Insurance Company appointed a investigator to inspect the said matter. The complainant also informed the said event to RTO, Krishnagar, Nadia. But the OP Insurance Company stated by letter dtd. 27.01.2014 that after scrutinizing all documents it is observed that there is a clear delay in intimation of 13 days. Through this letter the OP also indicated that the complainant has violated the policy condition No. 1. In reply of the said letter, the complainant submitted clear clarification regarding delay in lodging F.I.R. wherein it is submitted that the police officer of Santipur P.S. advised the complainant that at first the police personnel would investigate the matter, thereafter, the F.I.R. would be taken and for that reason when the complainant has failed to search the said motor cycle here and there, then on 20.12.2013 the complainant came to the police station and lodged F.I.R. In reply of the said letter the OP Insurance Company kept mum. The cause of action arose on and from 27.01.2014 and continued day to day. The IDV of said motor cycle was 68,070/- mentioned in the policy certificate. Till date, no relief was granted in favour of the complainant. There is a clear gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP Insurance Company. Hence, the complainant knocked at the door of the Forum for getting his relief as prayed for in the prayer portion of the complaint.
OP Insurance Company contested this case by filing written version stating, inter alia, that there was a clear delay of 13 days as the vehicle was stolen on 09.12.2013 and the complainant informed the said event on 20.12.2013 and to that effect Santipur P.S. started a P.S. case No. 724/13 dtd. 20.12.2013 U/S 379 IPC.
The complainant also filed the claim form on 21.01.2014. So there is a clear delay of 43 days. Moreover, the complainant has violated the policy terms & conditions so the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as against OP 1, Insurance Company. In policy conditions, it is clearly stated that notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damages and in the event of any claim and thereafter, the insured shall give all such information and assistant as the complainant shall require. So as per policy terms & conditions there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP Insurance Company, so the complaint is liable to be rejected with cost.
OP No. 2, Kakuli Ghosh, agent of the Insurance Company contested this case by filing written version stating, inter alia, that the complainant has no cause of action against the opposite party but it is true fact that the agent OP No. 2, approached the complainant for purchasing the said policy at the place of show-room i.e., Chatterjee Auto Mobile. There is no gross negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 2 so the complaint is liable to be rejected with cost.
Now the Forum is to consider the following points:-
- Whether the complainant is to be treated as consumer or not as per
Consumer Protection Act 1986.
- Whether there is any gross negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OPs or not,
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No. 1.
We have perused complaint, written version, evidence on affidavit filed by both parties, written argument filed by both parties along with other relevant documents.
It is admitted fact that the complainant has obtained the insurance policy from the OP for his motor cycle being No. WB/52T/2653 which covers the period on and from 22.10.2013 to 21.10.2014. The theft was occurred on 09.12.2013 which is within the policy period. So as per the status between the complainant and the OP, the complainant is to be treated as consumer as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The point No. 1 is thus decided.
Point Nos. 2 &3:
The policy is admitted. The theft within the policy period is also admitted as the Santipur police station has started a P.S. case No. 724/13 dtd. 20.12.2013 under Section 379 IPC. But only one & vital point regarding delay in intimation causes disturbance to get the relief from OP / Insurance Company.
It should be the duty of the insured to inform the matter relating to theft of article / motor cycle in the instant case forthwith in the office of OP / Insurance Company / Police authority so that the Insurance Company and or police authority is able to search the alleged article / motor cycle in question as well as is able to recover the same. But in the instant case it is revealed that the theft was occurred on 09.12.13 & the complainant informed the matter to Santipur P.S. on 20.12.2013 i.e., after 12 days from the date of occurrence causing gross negligence on the part of complainant. It also causes violation of terms & conditions of the said policy as the police authority has lost the good opportunity for searching the motor cycle forthwith due to the negligence of the complainant.
There is no specific evidence regarding advice given to the complainant in his written complaint that at first the police personnel would investigate the matter, thereafter, F.I.R. would be taken. Rather in written complaint it is clearly stated that due to searching of the motor cycle, the delay for lodging F.I.R. was caused. Moreover, no final police report was submitted by the complainant. So we are not in a position to know the present status of the alleged motor cycle.
We have cited a case law i.e., Jasmer Sing vs. Reliance Central Insurance Company Ltd. Revision petition No. 4070 of 2012 wherein the accident of vehicle was occurred. There was a delay in intimation. The claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company Repudiation was justified. District Forum dismissed the complaint. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble State Commission. Hon'ble State Commission also dismissed the appeal and hence the revision. The Hon'ble National Commission held that the petitioner was required to give intimation to Insurance Company immediately after accident, wherein the intimation has been given after long days causing breach of condition of insurance policy. The petitioner was not entitled to get compensation even on non-standard basis.
In Jaspal Kaur & Anr. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. II (2015) CPJ 727 (NC) wherein the truck was stolen on 27.10.2008 and F.I.R. was lodged on 02.11.2008. There was a delay in intimation of clear 6 days. Hon'ble National Commission held that delay in intimation causes violation of terms & conditions of policy. Compensation on non-standard basis cannot be granted. Repudiation justified.
In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Trilochan Jane IV (2012) CPJ 441 (NC) wherein the Hon'ble National Commission held that in which on account of delay of two days in lodging F.I.R. & delay in intimation to Insurance Company regarding theft of vehicle, claim of complainant was dismissed.
Mere pleading in the complaint does not prove that the complainant informed the matter of theft immediately in the office of the OP / Insurance Company or police authority. Even after expiry of 12 days, the complainant informed the event of theft to the Santipur P.S. causing breach of condition of insurance policy. There is no gross negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP / Insurance Company. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief against OP / Insurance Company. The agent is not responsible to settle the claim amount because as per instruction of OP Insurance Company the agent can only collect the amount of premium. There is no role on the part of OP agent to settle the dispute between the parties. So there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP 2, agent. Point Nos. 2 & 3 are thus decided. Thus, the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case CC/2015/46 be and the same is dismissed on contest against OPs without cost.
Let the copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
