The complainant’s case germen in the complaint runs as follows – He purchased a vehicle on 20.11.2007. The vehicle was registered being no. WB 16T 9732 . The vehicle was insured under Op no.1 from the period 15.2.103 to 14.2.2014 mid night bearing Policy no……………….00010428.
It is also case of the complainant that he deposited amount Rs.655/- through Op no.3 by the agent of Insurance company namely Sri Ranajit Saha , the oP no.4. After receiving the amount the Insurance company issued the Insurance Premium certificate in the name of the complainant and he got that policy through oP no.3. That vehicle was theft on 8.1.2014 from his permanent address. The complainant lodged FIR in Dankuni P.S. vide specific case no.16 of 2014 dated 8.1.2014. The complainant lodged claim before the oP no.1. But the Op no.1 denied and repudiated the claim on the ground that Op no.1 did not get the premium for the policy. It is stated that Opno.1 repudiated on the ground that cheque issued by the Op no.3 Sudipta Talukdar in favour of the Insurer company , Op has been dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a letter to the oP no.1 on 15.1.2014 but no reply has been received from the OP no.1. Accordingly, this case has been filed praying compensation due to negligence act of the oP no.1.
Op no. 1 and 2 has filed Written version denying inter alia all material allegations and stated that policy bearing no. ……428 was initially issued in the name of the complainant Sandip Das subject to the clearance of Section 64 BV of the Insurance Act , if the premium amount is not cleared thereof , the insurance policy will be void ab initio. It is also submitted that cheque issued in the name of this OP Insurance company had been returned by the Bank , the number of the cheque was 095223 dated 20.8.2013 amounting to Rs.8578/- which was returned by the Axis Bank with comments alteration by scratching . Cheque returning memo stress that “alteration require drawer authentication” hence the same cheque was never realized before the Bank. Hence, due to such dishonour of cheque the premium amount was not received by the Insurance company. Hence, the policy was void abinitio as per provision 64 VB and clause 4 of IRDA Regulation, 2002. So, as the OP no.1 did not receive any premium, so the case should be dismissed.
It is also case of the Op no.1 the same incident was intimated to the complainant on 2.3.2013 . Accordingly, Op no.1 has no liability.
OP no.4 filed Written version denying inter alia all material allegations and stated that he had no knowledge whether the complainant has paid any premium amounting to Rs.655/- in cash to Op no.3 for purchase policy from Op no.1 . This Op no.4 is an agent of Op no.1. Op no.4 received one cheque from Op no.3 for six policies among which the policy of the complainant exists but due to dishonour of cheque all the six policies were cancelled and op no.4 informed the matter to Op no.3. Then Op no.3 paid cash for five policies for which new policy no. had been issued but oP no.3 did not pay the amount in cash against the policy in question
no………10428, i.e. policy of complainant’s vehicle. So no new policy had been issued in the name of Sandip Das. After receiving the summon the oP no.4 came to learn this fact. So the case should be dismissed.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Whether the complainant is a consumer ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
- Whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Point no.1
The complainant had purchased one insurance policy from Op no.1 and it appears that Insurance company issued OG132417-1802-00010428 valid from the period 15.2.2013 to 14.2.2014 mid night. So the complainant is a consumer under the oP no.1 as per Section 2(d)(i) of the C.P.Act, 1986.
Point no.2
It is admitted position that Op Insurance company issued one policy no. OG132417-1802-00010428 covering the vehicle number WB -16T-9732 in favour of Sandip Das with premium amount of Rs.655/-. This policy was valid at the time of incident. Op no.1 stated due to dishonoured of cheque they did not get the amount paid by the complainant. But to the dishonour of cheque they cancelled the policy of the complainant and the said matter has been informed to the complainant owner of the vehicle. The Opno.1 did not file any paper to show
that the same incident was informed to the complainant or they did not get the amount of Rs.655/- stated to have been paid by the complainant. The Op no.1 did not file any document showing that the Insured Policy bearing no. ……..428 has been cancelled by the OP no.1. There is no document before us to see that , the insured vehicle’s policy has been cancelled by the oP no.1 . Whatever may be the case, there must have been some document showing that the policy issued by the OP no.1 have been cancelled. The story of dishonour of cheque is immaterial. The op no.1 did not produce that dishonoured cheque. The complainant’s case is that he paid cash of Rs.655/- and op no.4 have collected that money. So there is no dispute or doubt that complainant did not pay the insurance premium ., As such, the complainant paid the premium for which the oP no.1 issued the Insurance policy in favour of the complainant and during the continuance of the policy theft of the vehicle was occurred. So, Op no.1 cannot avoid his liability of payment for theft of the insured vehicle.
So after deliberation over the materials before us i.e. documents filed by the complainant and oP we are of opinion that , Op no.1 cannot get rid of his liability of compensation to the complainant for theft of the vehicle which he is entitled to get as his vehicle was insured. So the case succeeds on contest. Hence it is-
Ordered
That the CC no. 63 of 2014 be and the same is allowed on contest. The oP no.1 is directed to pay Rs.32,000/- to the complainant towards his insured amount. The Op no.1 is further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for his mental
agony, harassment and pain. The op no.1 is also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant toward litigation cost.
All the above orders shall be complied by the Op no.1 within 45 days i.d. in addition to the above amount Rs.200/- per day shall be deposited by the OP no.1 to the Consumer Legal Aid Fund till full realisation. The complainant is also at liberty to execute the order by filing Execution case.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
