Susim Amitab Swain filed a consumer case on 21 Jul 2017 against Branch Manager,Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd in the Cuttak Consumer Court. The case no is CC/16/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 24 Aug 2017.
Orissa
Cuttak
CC/16/2016
Susim Amitab Swain - Complainant(s)
Versus
Branch Manager,Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)
Self
21 Jul 2017
ORDER
IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.
C.C No.16/2016
Susim Amitab Swain,
At:Shanti Vihar,Aparna Nagar,
PO:Nayabazar,P.S:Chauliaganj,
Dist:Cuttack. … Complainant.
Vrs.
Branch Manager,
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Kailash Plaza,Link Road ,Cuttack
Managing Director,
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
G.E.Plaza,Airport Road,Yerwada,
Pune-411006. … Opp. Parties.
Present: Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.
Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.
Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).
Date of filing: 08.02.2016.
Date of Order: 21.07.2017.
For the complainant : Mr. A.K.Samal,Adv. & Associates. .
For the O.Ps. : Sri R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.
Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.
The case is against O.Ps for deficiency in service.
Shortly the case is that the complainant had purchased a “Samsung S5” mobile phone on 04.05.2014(Annexure-1). The said mobile was insured with O.P No.1 vide policy No.OG-15-2424-4014-00000073. The said phone was stolen at Cuttack Railway station on 20.11.2014 for which FIR was lodged at GRPS, Cuttack(Annexure-2). The complainant submitted the claim with O.P No.1 on 20.11.2014 which was duly registered vide claim No.44298193. The O.P No.1 after receiving the claim remained silent for about 3 months and on 23.02.2015 the claim was rejected (Annexure-3). The complainant took help of consumer counseling centre but the matter was not solved. (Annexure-4). Police completed the enquiry in the mean time and submitted report for the said case No.133/2014 vide Final report No.77 dt.31.05.2015 as FR true but no clue”.Annexure-5). Insurance policy coverage for the said policy is enclosed vide Annexure-6. The claim was not settled by the O.Ps. Finding no other way, the complainant took shelter of this Hon’ble Forum. He has prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay the cost of telephone Rs.30,000/-, for mental agony Rs.25,000/-, towards harassment Rs.25,000/- & towards legal expenses Rs.20,000/-. Thus he has claimed a total sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. As per revised petition dt.03.05.2017 & vide his application dt.19.04.2017 for amendment of the earlier complaint petition, the complainant has further stated that the compensation worth Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed by him is changed as follows:-
Cost of telephone - Rs.52,000/-
For mental agony - Rs.25,000/-
For harassment - Rs.15,000/-
For legal expenses. - Rs. 8,000/-
Rs.1,00,000/-
The O.Ps vide their written statement dt.06.05.2016 have intimated that the complainant had kept the said phone on the chairs and talking with his friend which is negligence on the part of the complainant, hence there is violation of terms and conditions on the policy and thereby breached the general condition No.2 of the said policy by not taking reasonable care. Therefore O.P is not liable to pay the claim. As per terms of said insurance policy since the complainant kept the mobile on a chair which was unattended for which somebody had stolen the same. Therefore, the O.ps repudiated the claim on 23.2.2015.
Vide evidence affidavit dt.30.01.2017 the O.ps have stated that the complainant has admitted that on 20.11.2014 he had kept the phone on the chair and talking to his friend and suddenly found that the said phone was stolen. Therefore, the complainant has not taken any reasonable care and has committed breach of policy conditions for which the claim was repudiated.
Vide evidence affidavit dt.30.01.2017 one Rasmi Ranjan Mohanty who had investigated the matter on behalf of the O.ps has also stated that on 20.11.2014 at 11.00 A.M the complainant had kept the phone on a chair at Cuttack Railway station. The said telephone was kept unattended and somebody stolen the phone.
We have gone through the case in details. Perused the documents as filed by the complainant and as well as by the O.Ps. Heard the advocates from both the sides at length and have observed that the complainant has purchased a mobile “Samsung S-5” with accessories for Rs.52,000/- which was insured with O.Ps vide Policy No. No.OG-15-2424-4014-00000073. The said phone was stolen by someone on 20.11.2014 at about 11.00 P.M. while the complainant had kept the phone on a chair and was talking to his friend. The FIR was lodged with GRPS, Cuttack and claim was lodged with the O.Ps. The O.Ps repudiated the claim basing on the fact that the complainant had left the phone on the chair which was not attended by any one. During the course of hearing it was observed that the phone was kept and not left on the chair. It was also stated in the FIR as well as on the final police report that while the phone was kept on the chair it was stolen by somebody. Since the policy coverage was for damage, loss, breakage and all risk cover including theft or loss, the O.Ps are at fault for not settling the claim and hence the deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps is proved.
ORDER
Basing on the facts and circumstances as stated above and to meet the ends of justice, the O.Ps will pay the complainant a sum of Rs,.52,000/- towards cost of telephone, a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and a further sum of Rs.3000/- towards cost of litigation. Thus the O.Ps will pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- in total to the complainant. Such payment shall be made within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take shelter of this Hon’ble Forum again as per C.P.Act,1986.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 21st day of July,2017 under the seal and signature of this Forum.
(Sri B.N.Tripathy )
Member.
( Sri D.C.Barik )
President.
(Smt. Sarmistha Nath)
Member(W).
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.