Orissa

Cuttak

CC/111/2016

Banshidhara Biswal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,New India Assurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R K Pattanaik

19 Jun 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

C.C No.111/2016

 

Bansidhara Biswal,

At:Barasingha,PO:Godisahi,

P.S:Baranga,Dist:Cuttack.                                                          … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

       Branch Manager,

       New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

       Cuttack District Branch Office,

       Infront of Arunodaya Market,

       Link Road,Cuttack-12..                                                               … Opp. Party.

 

Present:              Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:     22.062016. 

Date of Order:   19.06.2017.

 

For the complainant        :       Sri R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.                     :       Sri P.K.Panda,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

                The case is against deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

1. Shortly, the case is that the complainant purchased a 2^nd hand Tata Truck (model No.LPT 1613) bearing No.OR-09-D-7785 for a price of Rs.8,00,000/-.  The said tuck was insured with the O.P vide Policy No.55040131150100001370 for the period from 02.06,215 to 01.06.2016.  The insured declared value for the said truck was Rs.5,00,000/-(Annexure-1).  A sum of Rs.28,339/- was paid as premium for the purpose (Annexure-2). On 20.06.2015 at about 12 P.M. in the night the driver parked the truck near Gopalpur Check gate under lock and key and went for dinner.  After having dinner he came back and found the truck was missing.  Immediately the driver contacted the owner of the vehicle.  The owner of the vehicle and driver both searched the vehicle for about 25 days but in vain.  The complainant intimated the matter in the nearby police station and lodged FIR at Cuttack Sadar Police station on 14.07.2015(Annexure-3).  The fact of theft of the truck was immediately brought to the notice of the O.P.  The claim was lodged with the O.P and the O.P was requested on 22.06.2015 to settle the claim.  The O.P. deputed their Investigator/surveyor to investigate the matter and all documents such as R.C.Book, original insurance policy, original permit, Xerox copy of D.L, original fitness certificate, original key of the vehicle, copy of FIR etc. were also examined by the surveyor.  Such documents were submitted to the O.P on 22.06.2015 for settlement of the claim.  Police final report was submitted on 12.02.2016(Annexure-5).  The O.P vide their letter dt.04.07.2016 repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant had not taken reasonable care to safe guard the vehicle and the vehicle was left unattended at the time of theft.  Further the complainant had made delay in lodging FIR for which the O.P lost its right to recover the vehicle.(Annexure-6).  Finding no other way, the complainant took shelter under this Hon’ble Forum.  He has prayed to direct the O.P to settle the claim for Rs.5,00,000/-, to pay interest on the said amount @ 9% w.e.f  the date of submission of claim i.e. 22.06.2015, compensation for mental agony Rs.50,000/- and cost of litigation Rs.20,000/-.
2. Vide their written version ddt.02.11.2016 the O.P has intimated that the complainant made inordinate delay of 27 days in lodging the FIR at the police station.  The alleged theft of the truck bearing No.OR-09D-7785 occurred on 20.06.2015 whereas the FIR was lodged on 14.07.2015.  Such an action of the complainant violates condition No.1 of the policy in question which is as follows:-

“In case of theft or criminal act which may be subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender…”

In the instant case the vehicle was left unattended admittedly parked at Gopalpur Toll Gate.  Such an act of the complainant violates condition No.5 of the policy relevant portion of which is as follows:-

“The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle insured from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition….” Hence the claim was repudiated.

 

3. We have gone through the case in details and perused the documents minutely as filed by the complainant and as well as by the O.Ps.  We have observed that the complainant had insured the truck bearing No.OR-09D-7785 with the O.P for the period from 02.06.2015  to 01.06.2016vide policy No.55040131100001373.  On 20.06.2015 at about 12 P.M. in the night the driver parked the vehicle near Gopalpur check gate and left the vehicle unattended and went for dinner.  When he came back he found that the vehicle was stolen.  On 14.07.2015 the FIR was lodged with Sadar Police Station.  Thus there was an abnormal delay in lodging the FIR and on 25^th day itself the FIR was lodged.  The complainant has explained such delay that since both the owner and driver searched the tuck for 10/25 days and could not trace the same for which the FIR was lodged on 14.07.2015.    The police submitted the final report vide FR 30 dt.12.02.2016 for FIR No.190 dt.14.07.2015 as FR True but no clue.  Vide condition No.1 of the said policy it is stated that “In case of theft or criminal act which may be subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender.”  Vide condition No.5 of the said policy it is stated that “The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safe guard the vehicle insured from loss or damage”.  The complainant lodged the FIR late and also parked the vehicle in the road side at night when nobody was present to look after the said vehicle.  Thus the complainant has violated the contractual obligation of the said policy.  Vide first appeal no.321 of 2005 the Hon’ble National Commission while deciding C.D. Case No.60 of 2001 of Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack it was held that “In case of theft where no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon the respondent to inform the police about the theft immediately, say within 24 hours…..”.  Vide Revision Petition No.361472012 In the case of Attar Singh & Another Vrs. Reliance General Insurance Co. (from the order dt.29.05.2012 in First Appeal No.1078/2011 of State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission,Haryana it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission  on 09.10.2012 that “Theft cases must be immediately reported to police”. [(2012(4) CPR-240(NC)].  Vide Revision Petition No.4469 of 2012  In the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. M/s. Police Patil (From the order dt.29.08.2012 in Appeal No.1885/2011 of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,Bangalaore) it was held by Hon’ble National Commission on 19.12.2012 that insurance claim cannot be allowed beyond terms of policy[(2015(1) CPR-108(NC)]

ORDER

                                Basing on the facts and circumstances as stated above and to meet the ends of justice it is observed that the complainant has violated the policy conditions.  Thus the complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.  Hence the case is dismissed.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 19^th  day of June,2017 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

                                                                                                                                       (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                                                             Member.

 

 

                                                                                                                                           (   Sri D.C.Barik  )

                                                                                                                                              President.

 

                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                               (Smt. Sarmistha Nath) 

                                                                                                                                           Member(W).