DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 39 of 2021.

 

1. Dr. Ritabrata Ghatak,

S/O.-Sri Biswanath Ghatak,

C/O.-Sri Ajoy Prasad Chowdhury,

L.N. Bari Road, Banamalipur, P.S.-East Agartala, Pin-799001,

Dist.- West Tripura …....…...............................................................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. Branch Manager,

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.

First Floor, 14 T.G. Road,

Bank of Baroda Building,  

Ramnagar Road No.4, Near Giriraj

P.S.-West Agartala, Dist.-West Tripura, Pin-799001.

 

2. General Manager, 

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.l

Constantia Building, 2nd Floor, 

11 Dr. UN Brahmachari Street, 

Kolkata, 700017.

 

3. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.

One India Bulls Center, Tower 1, 

14th Floor, Jupiter Mill Compound, 

841, Senapati Bapat Marg,

Elphinstone Road,Mumbai, 400013..............................................Opposite Parties.

 

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Dripta Pratim Ghosh,

  Advocate. 

 

For the O.Ps. : Sri Prabal Kr. Ghosh,

  Advocate,

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 07/12/2022.

 

 

J U D G M E N T

Complainant Sri Ritabrata Ghatak filed this instant case U/S 35 of the C. P. Act 2019 for an order directing the O/Ps for payment of compensation of Rs. 3,06,184.32 for cost of bike, mental and physical sufferings and litigation cost etc. due to the deficiency caused by the O.Ps namely Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.

The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant purchased one “Royal Enfield Thunderbird 350 IV X ROVING RED BS motor cycle on 23.07.2018 vides Chassis No. ME3U3S5C1JF334195 AND having Engine No. U3S5C1JF397500N XED Motorcycles, who is the authorized from dealer/distributor of Royal Enfield Motorcycles  situated at Nutan Nagar, Agartala Airport Road for a consideration of  Rs.1,56,184.32 ( One lakh fifty six thousand one hundred eighty four and thirty two paisa) only. After purchase the motorcycle has registered properly from the competent authority and the said vehicle was numbered as TR01 AH 5103 and after getting all the relevant documents such as registration certificate, tax invoice, pollution certificate etc. the motorcycle was insured by the O.P no. 1 vide policy no. 014684005, which was issued on 23.07.2018 for a period of 23.07.2018 to 22.07.2019. On 06.02.2019 at about 07.30 pm when the complainant went to the house of Dr. Saikat Saha, Resident of Ashram Chowmuhani, beside Deb Car Parlour, Assam Agartala Road and in front of that house the motorcycle was missing. Thereafter the complainant tried to find out the motorcycle in nearby places and later on Mr. Ghatak went to the East Agartala P.S. on 06.02.2019 at 11.00 pm and the complainant verbally informed the matter to the police personnel of East Agartala P.S. and as per advice of the police the complainant by the next date submitted one written complainant to the East Agartala P.S.. After receiving the written complainant the East Agartala police personnel register his complaint vide G.D.Entry No.49 dated 06/02/2019 as the complainant orally informed about the incident to the police on 06.02.2019. The next date of the alleged incident the complainant went to the office of O.P. 1 and inform about the missing incident but the O.P. instructed the complainant to submit a online claim and after all the formalities the O.P. provide a complain No. 0821259915A for settlement of the claim. After getting the complaint from the complainant the O.P. No.3 has issued one letter to the complainant on 11.02.2019 and also told that one investigator will visit the place and the said investigator will also collect the relevant documents of motorcycle as well the copy of the complain. All the documents/papers were handed over to the investigator. On 21.02.2019, complainant received one call from East P.S. and immediately the complainant rushed to the P.S. and thereon the G.D. Officer instructed the complainant to file another complaint stating the theft of the aforesaid motorcycle. The complainant filed another complaint which was registered as East Agartala GD No. 31 dated 21.02.2019 and subsequently, registered as East Agartala P.S. Case No. 2019EAG037 datad21.02.2019 U/S – 379 IPC. After collection of all the documents the complainant has submitted those documents to the OP.2 through speed post. After sending all the documents on several occasions the complainant had tried to communicate with the OP over telephone and personal visit to the office of the OP 1 but all in vain. On later dates also in spite of more than one communications ultimately the OP No. 2 rejected the claim of the complainant on 29.12.2020.

Hence, the complainant sought for various reliefs for the deficiency of service caused by the OP’s such as Rs.1,00,000/- for compensation for mental and physical sufferings, Rs.1,56,184.32/- for cost of the motorcycle along with 12% interest and Rs. 50,000/- for litigation cost etc.  

2.    On the other hand O.Ps contested the case by filling written statements.

In the written statements the O.Ps submitted Para-wise reply to the complaint in seriatim. Mainly, Ops, denied and disputed the averments which was stated by the complainant and also stated that the instant complaint is vexatious and baseless and for that it is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, it is averred that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint as there is no deficiency on the part of the OP.

    The Ops in their written statements / written version stated that there is no cause of action in filing the instant complaint and the Complainant has approached this Commission with unclean hands by making false allegation against the answering O.P. After receipt of intimation from the Complainant, the OP conducted investigation of the incident through their appointed investigator and found that FIR was filed 15 days later of the incident, date of loss of the motorcycle is 06.02.2019 and the FIR lodged on 21.02.2019 and due to delay in intimation to the police, no opportunity was given to the investigator for proper investigation. Henceforth, the said claim was fit for repudiation as the insured has violated the conditions of the contract of insurance. Therefore, the complaint needs to be dismissed.

                       EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

3.    Complainant has examined himself as PW – 1 and he has submitted his examination-in-chief by way of Affidavit. In this case the complainant produced 11 documents comprising 23 sheets under two firisti dated 25.03.2022 and 06.05.2022 respectively. The complainant submitted one document on 25.03.2022 and the rests are on 06.05.2022. The documents are marked as Exhibit – 1 Series.

      On behalf of the Ops no witness was adduced after getting the ample opportunity by the OP.

 4.      POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

     On perusal of the pleadings of both the parties and having regard to the evidence adduced by the complainant, the following points are to be determined:

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Ops towards the Complainant?

Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation/relief as sought for?

5.  ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES:

We have heard arguments.

At the time of argument, Learned Counsel of the Complainant submitted that the complainant had purchased a motorcycle on 23.07.2018 for his personal use from XED Motorcycles, Nutan Nagar, Agartala Airport Road for an amount of Rs. 1,56,184.32/- ( Rupees One lakh fifty six thousand one hundred eighty four and thirty two paisa) only. The said motorcycle was temporarily registered with competent Authority and having registered no. TR01 AH 5103 and which cycle was insured with the O.P. i.e. from 23.07.2018 to 22.07.2019 in the name of the Complainant, owner of the motorcycle. The said motorcycle was theft in front of the house of Dr. Saikat Saha on 06.02.2019 thereafter the Complainant informed the matter to the East Agartala Police Station vide GDE No. 49 dated 06.02.2019 and subsequently on 21.02.2019 vide GDE No. 31 which was registered as East Agartala Police Station Case No. 2019EAG037 dated 21.02.2019 U/S – 379 IPC. From the records it revealed that was before theft of the motorcycle the cycle was duly registered and after registration the cycle was insured with the Ops. After investigation the Investigating Officer submits his Final Report No. 51/2019 dated 25/05/2019 but the Complainant as a whole proficiently proved his claim by presenting oral evidence as well as documentary evidence and by that the Complainant capable to prove that it is a clear case of deficiency of service occurred by the OP.

        On the other hand none appeared on behalf of the OP on the date of argument.

 

6. DECISION AND REASON FOR DECISION:

              We have carefully gone through the pleadings as well as of the Complainant. For the sake of the convenience all the points are taken up together for decision. It is admitted fact that the Complainant purchased a motorcycle on 23.07.2018 from XED Motorcycles, Nutan Nagar, Agartala Airport Road vide Chasis No. ME3U3S5C1JF334195 and Engine No. U3S5C1JF397500N for a consideration of Rs. 1,56,184.32/- ( Rupees one lakh fifty six thousand one hundred eighty four and thirty two paisa ) only. After purchase the motorcycle was duly registered with the competent Authority and later on the said cycle was insured with the OP i.e. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vide Policy No. 0146684005 for a period of 23.07.2018 to 22.07.2019. The said motorcycle was a valid permanent registration vide no. TR01 AH 5103. On 06.02.2019 when the Complainant went to the house of Dr. Saikat Saha, R/O Ashram Chowmuhani, Assam Agartala Road in front of the house of Dr. Saha the motorcycle was missing / theft. Thereafter, Complainant informed the matter to the East Agartala P.S. vide GDE No.49 dated 06.02.2019 and again on 21.02.2019 vide GDE No. 31 and subsequently, registered as East Agartala P.S. Case No. 2019EAG037 dated 21.02.2019 U/S – 379 IPC. The Complainant had made a claim before the OP Insurance Co. through online and accordingly the Insurance Company has given a claim reference no. for future correspondence vide no. 0821259915A. In reference with the said claim/complain no. of the Insurance  Co. an enquiry / investigation was done by one M/s Dipak Das who had taken all the relevant papers from the Complainant but the Insurance Co. over telephone informed to the Complainant that the Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation on 29.12.2020. The OP didn’t narrate any reason for rejection of claim. Although there was several communication between the Complainant and the Ops but lastly the OP repudiated the justified claim of the Complainant. Having no other alternative the Complainant filed this complaint against Ops for deficiency of service.

              On perusal of the written version submitted by the OP we found that the only ground for repudiation of the claim is that the there is a delay of 15 days in filing the FIR. The motor cycle was missing/theft on 06.02.2018 but the FIR was lodged on 21.02.2019. The O.P. also submits that due to inordinate delay in intimation to the police authority, no opportunity was given to the investigator for proper  investigation of the case, which jeopardize the chances of recovery of the vehicle. Henceforth, the claim was repudiated as the insured has violated the Conditions of the contract of insurance. Therefore the complaint needs to be dismissed. O.Ps didn’t adduce any evidence and also didn’t place even their arguments. From the exhibited documents relied upon by the Complainant, we find that the First GDE made by the complainant on 06.02.2019 vide GDE No.49 and the intimation of the incident was given to the Insurance Co. on 07.02.2019 more to that the insurance Co. appointed a investigator  and to that effect an intimation was given to the complainant on 11.02.2019. The final report was submitted by the I.O on 25.05.2019 and he opined that the during investigation it revealed that on 06.02.2019 in between 1930 hrs to 2200 hrs the motorcycle was stolen away by unknown miscreant/miscreants. There is no doubt about the missing or theft of the motorcycle. The case of the Complainant is that the motorcycle was insured w.e.f. 23.07.2018 to 22.07.2019 having a valid registration no. TRO1 AH 5103 and also the Complainant intimated the matter to the Ops as well as the concerned PS. So, the Ops can’t repudiate the claim of the Complainant. The Complainant also adduced sufficient documentary evidence in support of his claim. It is needed to mention here that Delay in lodging FIR by itself is not enough for rejection of the complaint whereas from the exhibited documents we seen that GDE lodged on 06.02.2019. So, it is very much clear that the O.P. illegally repudiated the claim of the Complainant and their repudiation is not justified.          

                 In view of the discussion made in aforesaid mentioned Para, we are of the considered view that the Complainant had successfully made the case of deficiency of service against the O.Ps.

7.       Hence, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. for rejecting the claim of the Complainant. Now, we will decide the quantum of compensation that the Complainant will get. The full price / cost of the motorcycle i.e. Rs. 1, 56,184.32/-. The Complainant is also entitled to get compensation for mental and physical sufferings etc which will be a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- . We also decide that the complainant is entitled to get the litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. In total the Complainant will get Rs. 2, 16,184.32( Rs. 1,56,184.32 + Rs. 50,000/- + Rs.10,000/-). The O.Ps are directed to make the whole payment within 2 months from the date of this Judgment, if the payment is not made within 2 months then it will carry interest @ 9% p. a. till the payment is made in full. Accordingly the complaint is partly allowed.

  Supply a certified copy of judgment to both the parties free of cost.

Announced.

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.