West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/160/2012

Sri Anup Kumar Ghosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

06 Sep 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.160/2012                                                                                         

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.         

                 

Sri Anup Kumar Ghosh, S/o-Late Surendra Nath Ghosh, Vill-Koja, P.O.-Sirsha, P.S.-Keshpur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur… …………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., 3^rd Floor, Block-B, Eco Space, Plot No: II/F/II, New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata-700156
2.  The Branch Manager, Contai Co-operative Bank Ltd., at P.O.-Contai, P.S.-Contai,  Dist-Purba Medinipur ………Ops.

                      Order No.13                                                                       Dated:-06/09/2013.

 

        This is the case of the complainant  that he owns a Truck being its registration No.WB-33/A-5794, purchased on the financial help of Op No.2 Contai Co-Operative Bank Ltd. By an agreement.  The complainant insured the vehicle with the Op No.1 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company under policy No.80D62669043.  Unfortunately, on 12/02/2012 at about 8.00 p.m. during the validity of the Insurance policy the vehicle was stolen from the place of “Singh Hotel” within Debra P.S. by the side of NH-6 Road by some unknown miscreants.  The police case was started under Section 392 IPC and accordingly final report has been submitted before Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate; Paschim Medinipur.  The complainant supplied all relevant documents to the Op Insurance Company claiming an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lakhs) only. But the OP willfully repudiated the claim of the complainant.

      Op No.2 Co-Operative Bank contested the case by filing W/O challenging that the Op Bank is entitled to the amount of money to the extent of its dues after adjustment as the vehicle was reportedly theft within the valid period of Insurance coverage and the Op No.1 has no scope to repudiate the claim of the petitioner.

    Op No.1 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company also contested the case by separately filing W/O claiming that the vehicle was kept unattended and according to the condition

Contd……………….P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

of the policy the complainant cannot claim compensation against the Insurance Company.

     During hearing Ld. Advocate for the Op No.1 Insurance Company has produced the policy showing its clause No.5 that the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle insured form loss or damage.  This is not the case that the vehicle was in fact stolen out of careful possession of the complainant. In this connection, the policy report, according to the Ld. Advocate for the Op No.1, does not support the case of theft or stolen or snatched.  If that be so the complainant should not claim compensation against the Op No.1 Insurance Company.

      In reply, Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his submission that branch of condition as pointed out in Para V. of the policy should not be the prime criteria to decide the case against the complainant.  The case of theft of a vehicle should be considered sympathetically.  Here  the vehicle was kept at an isolated place on the road near by a hotel just for a bit of hours and in the mean time the car was stolen.  This happening should not be designated to be a case of theft on unattending of the vehicle.  In such a circumstance, the Insurance Company can not repudiate the entire claim of the loss of the vehicle due to theft. In order to qualify the argument the decisions reported in 2012(4) CPR 328(NC) & 2012 (4) CPR 326 (NC) is discussed elaborately.

      Considering the entire case and material document on record it appears that the loss of vehicle is not effectively supported by legal evidence so that we may come to the definite conclusion that the vehicle was kept under reasonable  care and in spite of that the vehicle was allegedly stolen away by some miscreants.  Upon proper scrutiny of the F.I.R. itself, the complainant does not go to convince us that even for a moment taken for natures call of the driver the vehicle was stolen by the miscreants as reported before the P.S. As a result it is held and decided that the case should fail.   

                 Hence, it is,

                                    Ordered,

                                                    that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.

Dic. & Corrected by me

             Sd/-                               Sd/-                            Sd/-                                           Sd/-      

         President                       Member                      Member                                   President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                         Paschim Medinipur.