IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/40/2015.
Date of Filing: 23.03.2015. Date of Final Order: 21.02.2017
Complainant: Bappa Dutta, S/O Kali Sankar Dutta, F/1, Golden Hights,
26 Sriram Siromoni Road, P.O. Khagra, P.S. Berhampore Town,
Dist. Murshidabad.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Branch Manager, Berhampore Branch, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Chuanpur More, Apollo Tyres, P.O. Berhampore, P.S. Berhampore,
Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742101.
2. Circle Regional Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Reliance House, 5th Floor, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata-700001.
3. Berhampore Motor Cycle (TVS), Panchantala, P.O. Cossimbazar,
P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742102.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ………………... President.
Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….…………. Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya, Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for payment of Rs.53 760/- towards insurance claim for theft of insured Motor Bike along with interest and compensation of Rs.20,000/- for harassment and mental agony.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that he purchased a TVS Motor Cycle, registration No. WB-58G-1851 for Rs.52, 490/- financed by ICICI Bank from OP No.3 who proposed for making insurance of his motor bike through OP No.2 and confirmed the correctness of that policy. Then the complainant insured his Bike with Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd being policy No. 15-23-12-04057-06 on 02.06.2006 and the complainant signed the policy papers at the premises of Op No.3 Showroom. On 15.10.2006 the said motor bike was stolen from the ground floor of the flat of the complainant who lodged FIR with Berhampore P.S. and G.R. Case No. 1508/06 was started on 16.10.06 and FRT was submitted on 26.2.07 and the complainant got a copy of the same on 28.3.07. The policy period was for one year from 31.5.06. The complainant submitted claim application along with relevant documents before the OP No.2 and intimated OP No.3. Thereafter, the complainant went to the office of OP No.2&3 where OP No.2 promised to pay the insured amount to ICICI Bank. The complainant became astonished when he applied for taking another loan for his own purpose but at the time of investigation the Bank found that he has credited Rs.53,760/- in ICICI Bank Ltd then he enquired the matter and found that the OP Nos. 1 to 3 have not paid any insured amount to ICICI Bank. Thereafter, the complainant went to the office of OP Nos. 1&2 and demanded the insured amount but no result. The OP No.3 is also liable for the same. Hence, the instant complaint case.
The written version filed by OP Nos. 1&2 Insurance Company, in brief, is that the alleged policy No. 15-23-12-04057-06 insured in favour of Mr. Buppa Dutta, the complainant was never been issued by these OP Nos. 1&2 and for that they are not liable to indemnify the loss of the complainant and for that there was no question of deficiency in service on the part of Op Nos. 1&2. Accordingly, the OP-Insurance Co. has rightly repudiated the claim and for that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the instant written version
Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points have been arrayed for the disposal of the case.
Point for Decision
- Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and in law?
- Whether the complainant has any cause of action to file the present case?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled to get ?
Decision with Reasons
Point Nos. 1 to 4.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The instant complaint is for payment of insurance claim of Rs.53,770/- for theft of insured motor bike along with interest and compensation.
The complainant’s main case is that the complaint signed the insurance paper at the premises of OP No.3 showroom at the time of purchase of his TVS Motor Bike through OP No.2-Insurance Co. being confirmed by OPNo.3 as to correctness of his policy for one year from 31.05.2006. The said insured motor-bike was stolen on 15.10.2006 from the ground floor of the flat of the complainant, FIR was lodged on16.10.2006 and FRT was submitted on 26.02.2007 and the complainant got copy of said order on 28.03.2007. Thereafter insurance claim application was filed before OP No.2 but they refused to pay the same.
On the other hand OP Nos.1&2 –Insurance Co’s main case is that the alleged policy is a fake policy and no such policy was issued by the OP No.1&2 Insurance Co. and for that they have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
In this case the complainant has tendered his examination-in-chief by affidavit and has adduced relevant documents in support of his case and he has been cross-examined on dock by the Ld. lawyer for the OP Nos. 1&2 Insurance Co.
The OP Nos. 1&2, Insurance Co’s main case is that the alleged Insurance policy of the complainant in respect of the alleged stolen motor-bike is fake policy.
The complainant has deposed during his cross-examination by OP-Insurance Co. that the policy was executed in the show room of Op No.3 at the time of purchase and the persons present there were introduced by the OP NO.3 as agent of Op No.2-Insurance Co and he never contacted with the OP Nos.1&2 Insurance Co. for getting the policy.
Where, Op No.3 the dealer of the stolen motor cycle appeared in this case and prayed for time for filing written version and the same was rejected after giving sufficient opportunity and ultimately the case has been taken up for hearing ex parte against the OP No.3.
Admittedly, the impugned Motor Cycle was purchased by the complainant from OP no.3 on 22.5.2006 and the same was stolen 22.5.2006 and the same was stolen in between 14.10.06 to 15.10.06 and FIR was lodged on 15.10.2006 and FRT was submitted on 26.2.07 and complainant got copy of the same on 28.3.07 and thereafter filed claim application to OP No.2 claiming insurance policy for theft of motor-cycle whose total purchase amount is Rs.53,000/- copy of that letter without mentioning any date has been filed and also intimated OP No.3.
From the complaint petition it also appears that the complainant went to the office of the OP Nos. 2&3 where OP No.2 promised to pay the insured amount to the ICICI Bank but there is no whisper of any date.
It further appears from complaint petition that the complainant became astonished when he applied for another loan and found Rs.53760/- was credited in ICICI Bank and on enquiry found that Op Nos.1 to 3 did not pay the insured amount to the ICICI Bank and to that effect the complainant has filed a document showing the date as 12.06.2006.
At the same time the Op Nos. 1&2 Insurance Co’s case is that they repudiated the claim being alleged policy was fake policy and without mentioning any date of such repudiation.
The instant complaint case has been filed on 23.3.2015.
In this case the complainant himself only deposed and cross-examined and he has filed the policy documents including other documents but he has not examined any other witness where the policy has been challenged as fake.
During hearing argument the ld lawyer for the OP Nos. 1&2 Insurance Co has advanced argument that the alleged Insurance Policy being fake and not issued by their office, they are not liable to pay any insurance claim and OP No.3 is liable being issued from his show room for such mal practice and unfair trade practice.
But, in the claim petition there is no such claim categorically mentioned as to sole liability of the OP No.3 for issuance of such fake policy from his showroom. Also, the unknown persons present in the show-room represented by Op No.3 as agent of the OP-Insurance Co has not been impleaded and no criminal case or any complaint has been lodged against them.
The settled principle is that the court cannot go beyond the pleadings.
PW-1 has deposed in his cross-examination that after theft of that motor cycle he claimed policy amount from the Insurance Co. through OP No.3.
He has also deposed that in the year 2014 for the first time when he went to the Bank for taking loan for other purpose, he came to know that his said insurance claim was repudiated on the ground of fake policy and after repudiation he approached OP No.3 for relief but he was silent.
He has deposed that after purchase they never contacted with the Insurance Co.
All these facts as deposed are not categorically mentioned in the complaint petition.
Rather, it is clear from the evidence of PW-1 in cross that in the year 2014 for the first time he came to know about repudiation where admittedly FRT was submitted on 26.02.07 and got copy of the said order on 28.3.07, thereafter filed claim application before the Insurance Co.
It is further clear from the cross-examination of PW-1 that the complainant came to know about repudiation as well as the fake policy before filing this case but the complainant did not file any criminal case for the alleged issuance of fake insurance policy. Also, in this complaint petition there is no specific averment alleging against OpNo.3 for issuance of fake Insurance Policy which is a criminal offence or any specific claim against him for mal-practice or unfair trade practice. At the same time the complainant has also failed to establish by adducing any further cogent evidence that the disputed Insurance policy is genuine one.
Initially, the ICICI Bank, the financer of the instant purchase of Motor Bike by the complainant was impleaded as Op No.4 which was subsequently expunged on the prayer of the complainant and no relief was claimed against OpNo.4.
But, the complainant has filed a document of ICICI Bank claiming Rs.1, 72,313.74 from the complainant towards prepayment of his two wheeler Loan A/C and relying upon this document during hearing argument the Ld. lawyer for the complainant has claimed relief of Rs.1, 72,313.74 where the complainant has claimed in the claim petition only Rs.53, 760/- plus interest and compensation.
In this regard we find that the present claim relying upon the document of expunged OP No.4-Financer Bank cannot be entertained being beyond pleading.
Also, considering the period of delay in lodging complaint as discussed above and also for absence of any explanation and prayer for condonation of such delay we have no other alternative but to hold that the case is hopelessly barred by limitation.
Further the complainant being failed to prove the alleged Insurance Policy as genuine is not entitled to get any relief against OP-Insurance Co.
Considering the above discussions as a whole we have no other alternative but to conclude that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case and as such the complaint be dismissed without any cost.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. CC/40/2015 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest without any order as to cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
Member President.
