This is a case U/S 12,  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer for an award directing the O.Ps. to  pay Rs.2,63,000/- (sum assured) as cost of vehicle along with interest, to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.

The complainant’s case in short is that he was the owner of Mahindra Bolero vehicle having registration No.WB-60E/5472 and said vehicle was covered by the insurance policy being No. OG-12-2414-1801-00000176 in which Rs.2,63,000/- was the  assured sum, valid for the period from 19.05.2011 to 18.05.2012 under the O.P. On 27.04.2012 at about 08-00 p.m. the driver named Ajit Sardar @ Sanjit Sardar was driving the vehicle towards the house of the owner’s sister at Siliguri, on the way he stopped the vehicle at Gabgachhi and there in a stall he became senseless after taking a glass of water & a cup of

tea. Being intimated about said occurrence and theft of such vehicle, the complainant intimated the matter to Raiganj P.S. on said date  and being

advised by the Police, Raiganj P.S. he lodged the written complaint at Islampur P.S. on 29.04.2012. Immediately after the occurrence, the complainant made a claim for compensation before the O.P. insurer. Thereafter several correspondences were made in between the complainant and the O.Ps. but the O.Ps. on various pretext did not meet the claim of the complainant. So the complainant was forced to come before this Forum with the prayer as mentioned above.

The O.P. No.2 the Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited contested this case by filing written version and adducing evidence while denying the case of the complainant and stating inter alia that the theft as alleged by the complainant is doubtful and the driver of the vehicle keeping the ignition key in the vehicle left the vehicle and for such negligence the vehicle might be theft. This O.P. has further stated that  actually the driver as mentioned in the FIR did not drive the vehicle at the time of alleged occurrence and accordingly this case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

The O.P. No.1 did not contest this case by filing written version and appearing on date of hearing and as such this case was heard ex-parte against him.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

During the course of hearing, the case that the vehicle as mentioned, was owned by the complainant and the same was covered by the insurance policy No. OG-12-2414-1801-00000176 for the period from 19.05.2011 to 18.05.2012 in which Rs.2,63,000/- was the assured sum, under the O.Ps., is not denied by any of the contesting parties. So it could be safely said that the complainant is the consumer and the O.Ps. are  the service providers.

As per case of the complainant the theft of the vehicle was occurred within the period of coverage i,e, on 27.04.2012. In this connection the complainant has adduced oral  as well as documentary evidences which are copies of insurance policy certificate and several letters showing correspondences between the complainant and the O.Ps. On scrutiny of these documents it appears that immediately after the occurrence, the complainant made complaint before the Police and on the basis of said complaint the Police started necessary investigation. From the copies of the letters submitted, clearly show that after the occurrence the complainant intimated the same to the O.Ps. with the claim of compensation and the O.Ps. admitted the same by making several correspondences and directing the complainant to produce some documents before them. The copies of the admitted documents show that on various pretext  the O.Ps. killed  time and ultimately they did not settle the claim of the complainant. The insurance policy certificate shows that Rs.2,63,000/- was the assured sum. Being intimated about the occurrence, the O.Ps. got enough scope to investigate the occurrence through their agency but they did not do so. From this fact it is clear that there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and for negligence the complainant suffered very much.

It is essential to mention that the contesting O.P. has stated that the name of the driver as mentioned in the FIR and name of the driver as mentioned in the driving license are not identical. To challenge this case of the contesting O.P. the complainant has submitted an affidavit sworn by the driver himself and a certificate issued by the  Panchayat Pradhan, No.10 Maraikura GP. These two documents  show that Ajit Sardar is also known as Sanjit Sardar. To challenge these two documents and the specific case of the complainant in this connection the contesting O.P. has adduced no evidence. So we find nothing to disbelieve these two documents and this specific case of the complainant.

In view of our above discussions we are of the opinion that the complainant has been able to prove his case and accordingly the O.Ps. are liable to pay Rs.2,63,000/- (sum assured) as cost of the theft vehicle, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for unnecessary harassment and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.

Accordingly the case succeeds in part.

Fees  paid is correct.     Hence, it is

ordered,

that the complaint case being No.57/2013 is allowed in part on contest against the O.P. No.2 and ex-parte against the rest with cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only of which 25% is payable to the complainant and rest is payable to the West Bengal State Consumer Welfare fund.

that the complainant do get an award directing the O.Ps. to pay Rs.2,63,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand) only (sum assured) as cost of the vehicle, Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from this day failing which the total awarded amount of Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand) only will carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till the date of full realization of the awarded amount and the complainant will be at liberty to put this order in execution in accordance with law against the O.Ps. or any of the O.Ps.

Copy of this order be supplied to each parties of this case, free of cost.