: J U D G M E N T :
This is a case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by Goutam Halder against National Insurance Co. Ltd., Barrackpore and Krishnagar Branch.
The facts of the case to put in a nutshell, are as below:-
The complainant purchased from Matali, Enterprises, Barrackpore one Yamaha YZFR 15 model Motor cycle having the engine No. 1CK1012002, chasis No. ME11CKD1CB2012263 and registration No. WB 24V 7273 along with 1,13,800/- and Rs. 1577/- was also received as a premium of insurance by the OP No. 1. Insurance policy was issued in the name of the complainant which was valid while the new motor bike was stolen on 05.01.12. Krishanganj P.S. commenced investigation but the gang of criminal could be labbed. FIR No. 102/12 dtd. 30.04.12 was submitted by Pradip Kr. Roy, ASI. As per advice of OP No. 2 complainant submitted all relevant papers in original including one key of the said motor cycle on 10.02.12 in the office of OP No. 1. No action was taken by the Insurance Company. The cause of action arose on 04.11.12 when the motor bike was stolen with valid insurance policy.
Written version was filed on 13.03.12 challenging the jurisdiction of this Forum. One set of key was not submitted to the OPs and hence, the claim was pending. The written version dtd 13.03.13 was not signed by the OP but only signed by the lawyer, Raj Kumar Mandal. It is a serious law on the part of the OPs.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Point No. 1: Is the complainant a consumer?
- Point No. 2: Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
- Point No. 3: What relief the complainant is entitled to get?
REASOND DECISIONS
For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.
We have meticulously gone through the affidavit evidence. The question of interrogatories along with replies thereto. The affidavit was also filed by one Mr. Ashis Saha on 26.06.15.
Perused the relevant documents filed by the parties. It has become an admitted position that the motor bike was stolen and a case was started under Section 461 / 379 IPC which ended in F.R.T. Perused the copy of the F.I.R. in the record along with the affidavit.
From the documents we find that on 10.06.12 the Insurance Company received ignition key – one along with all documents against the theft claim. This document was uncontroverted, thus the argument of the Ld. Advocate for the OPs that the key was not handed over to the Insurance Company does not hold much water.
We have meticulously gone through the written argument by both parties and we find that the case of the complainant is very strong while the defence of the National Insurance Co. Ltd. is very weak.
The complainant has succeeded in establishing its claim of insurance for theft of motor bike mentioned above. But the Insurance Company could not prove as to why the said insurance claim was not allowed.
Hence, after going through the annexed documents, affidavits and brief note of arguments we are inclined to hold that it is a fit case for granting relief as the complainant has succeeded in establishing the deficiency on the part of the opposite party. All the points are thus disposed of with the observation that the opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 are duty bound to provide insurance amount to the complainant.
Hence, all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence,
Ordered,
That, the case CC/2012/77 be and the same is allowed on contest.
The OP No. 1 & OP No. 2 are directed to pay jointly or severally Rs. 1,00,000/- (rounded off) to the complainant by 18.01.2016 along with compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Hence, both the opposite parties shall jointly or severally pay Rs. 1,02,000/- by the date, in default, the decretal amount shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum since the date on 18.01.2016 till the realization of the full amount.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
