Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/43/2021

Namrata Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, National Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

B.K. Sharma

08 Feb 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-25-11-2021

Date of final hearing-08-02-2023

 Date of Order-08-02-2023

Case No. 43/2021

Namrata Kumari W/o Vinit Kumar

R/o Shivpuri Colony, Chas, Bokaro

Vs.

Branch Manager, National Insurance Company

 Natraj Mension, Bye Pass Road Chas, Bokaro

                             Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

    Shri Bhawani Prasad Lal Das, Member

                  Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

          

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-Judgement-

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer to direct the O.P. ( National Insurance Co. Ltd. ) to pay Rs. 1,28,250/- IDV value of the E-Rickshaw and also to pay Rs 1,20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and litigation cost respectively to her.

2.    Complainant’s case in short is that her E-Rickshaw  bearing registration No. JH-09-AU- 3593 was insured with O.P. (National Insurance Co. Ltd.) and policy was valid from 30.09.2019 to 29.09.2020 having Insured Declared Value (in short IDV) Rs. 1.28.250/- and on 26.07.2020 said E-Rickshaw was being send for repair meanwhile there was breakdown near Solagidih pond which was parked there and  her husband went away but when he returned there then it was found stolen away hence Chas P.S. Case No. 168/2020 was registered against unknown thief and matter was investigated, which ended by filing final form, showing occurrence true having no clue. Complainant submitted her claim before the O.P. which was not allowed on the ground that complainant has not taken reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle insured from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition. Therefore, this case has been filed.

3.   On issuance of notice O.P. appeared on 24.03.2022  but has not filed W.S. within prescribed period hence this case is being decided without W.S. However, written notes of argument has been filed which is on record.

4.  Now, point for consideration is that whether complainant is entitled to get relief as claimed or not?

5.  It is admitted fact that vehicle concerned was insured with the O.P. during the relevant period. Further admitted fact is that claim of the complainant has been considered by the O.P. and only on the ground that complainant has not taken reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle insured from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition claim has been rejected.

6. On perusal of the papers annexed with the complaint petition it appears that annexure-5 (page 8 to 11) is photo copy of motor insurance policy related to the vehicle concerned in which IDV is Rs. 1,28,250/- for which vehicle concerned has been insured and accordingly premium has been realized by the O.P. from the complainant. It is not in dispute that vehicle concerned was registered in the name of the complainant (photo copy of registration certificate is at page 7 of the annexure which shows that  complainant  is registered owner of the vehicle concerned. From page 12 to 14 of annexures it appears that Chas P.S. case No. 168/2020 was investigated and it culminated by filing final report with finding that occurrence is true but clueless. Photo copy of claim repudiation letter is annexure-7 (page 22) which shows that on the ground that complainant has not taken all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle insured from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition  and the company shall have at times free and full access to examine the vehicle insured or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event any accident or breakdown, the vehicle insured shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss. It appears that there is no evidence by the O.P. to support such ground. On perusal of the papers submitted by the complainant it appears that mere on hyper technical ground claim has been repudiated which is not acceptable.   

8.    In light of above discussion we are of the opinion that  there is deficiency in service by the O.P. and complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed. Accordingly this point is being decided in favour of the complainant.

9.    Accordingly prayer of the complainant is being allowed in the following manner:-

O.Ps. are directed to  pay Rs. 1,28,250/-  (IDV) to the complainant within 60 days from receipt/production of this order failing which he shall pay interest @ 10% per annum from 25.11.2021 (the date on which complaint was filed). Further O.Ps. are directed to pay Rs. 8000/- as compensation and Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost within 60 days from receipt/production of this order.

 

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

 

                                                                                               

(B.P.L Das)

Sr. Member

 

 

                                                                               (Baby Kumari)

                                                Member