C.F. CASE No.            :  CC/08/48                                                                                                         

 

COMPLAINANT            :  Binoy Saha

S/O Bijoy Kumer Saha

of Vill. & P.O. Duttafulia,

P.S. Dhantala, Dist. Nadia.

 

       –  Vs.  – 

 

OPPOSITE PARTY          :  Branch Manager

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Kalyani Branch

A-9/13 (S)  'A'  Block

Kalyani, Nadia.

 

        

PRESENT              :  SHRI DILIP KUMAR BASU               PRESIDENT

             :  KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY         MEMBER

             :  SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA   MEMBER  

 

DATE OF DELIVERY             

OF  JUDGMENT               :    30th January, 2009

 

 

:    J U D G M E N T   :

 

The fact of the complainant's case, in a nutshell, is as follows.

The complainant, Binoy Saha insured his Hero Honda Motor Cycle with   the   New   India   Assurance   Co.  Ltd.,   Kalyani  Branch  vide  Policy  No. 

2

512402/31/04/03942 which was valid from 08.10.04 to mid-night of 07.10.05.   The said Motor Cycle was stolen from the courtyard of the complainant's own house on 06.02.05 at night by some unknown criminals.  The complainant lodged a complain to the Dhantala P.S., and a case being No. 31 dtd. 09.02.05, U/S 379 of the I.P.C. was started.   He informed the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and the R.T.O., Krishnagar of the matter.  The complainant also submitted the claim in the prescribed form to the OP with all documents in reference to their letter No. 512402/Claims/BD/1474 dtd. 18.12.06 and 512402/Claims/BD/1907 dtd. 27.02.07.   So far as submission of Registration Certificate Book in original is concerned the complainant informed the OP that the said Registration Certificate Book was kept with the stolen Motor Cycle and thus it was lost and duplicate Registration Certificate Book, he informed the Insurance Company, would be submitted on receiving the same from the concerned RTO for which he had already written to.  Subsequently, the duplicate Registration Certificate, after obtaining from the RTO was submitted to the OP.  The OP, however, informed the complainant vide letter dtd. 31.03.07 that his claim was closed.   No reason was, however, given.

The complainant sent a letter dtd. 04.09.08  through his lawyer to the OP.  OP, thereafter, vide letter dtd. 22.09.08 informed the complainant that they might reopen his claim with the approval of their higher office, if the insured appealed to them along with all documents as per the letter dtd. 27.02.07.

Since the complainant filed required documents to the OP in respect of settlement of claim, there was no scope on the part of the complainant to submit documents further.  As the matter was long pending, finding no other way, the complainant filed the instant case and prayed for order (1) to refund of Rs. 22,000/- with interest from the date of occurrence, (2) payment of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment, (3) litigation cost and other 

3

relief or reliefs as entitled.

The OP by filing written version has contested the instant case denying all material averments of the complaint contending, inter alia, that the complainant was asked, on several occasions, to furnish the relevant documents, but the complainant did not submit the requisite papers for proceeding to settle of the claim and thus they informed the complainant i.e., claim was considered “no claim”, vide letter dtd. 31.01.07.  Again the OP informed the complainant vide letter dtd.  09.09.08 that they might reopen the claim of the complainant if the insured appealed to them along the all documents according to their letter dtd. 27.02.07.

 

In view of the above facts the following points are to be taken for proper consideration. 

Point No.1: Whether the case is maintainable in its present form?

Point No.2: Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part the opposite party?

Point No.3: Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?

 

DECESION WITH REASONS

 

All the points mentioned hereinbefore are taken together for the sake of convenience and brevity.

It is admitted that the insurance policy was issued by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Kalyani Branch, Nadia to the complainant for the period from 08.10.04 to midnight of 07.10.05.  So the complainant is a consumer under 

4

the OP as per provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Further the office of the OP is situated at Kalyani, Nadia which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

And also it appears from documents on record the OP informed the complainant vide letter dtd. 09.09.08 as to reopening claim file of the complainant.  Thus, cause of action arises on 09.09.08 and it is within the limitation period as specified in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   

In view of the above, we can say that the instant case is maintainable in its present form.

The Ld. Lawyer for OP while making argument stated that no document in reference to the letter dtd. 27.02.07 was submitted by the complainant.  He stated that his client informed the insured for reopening the file on submission of documents, but no document was produced to them.  He prayed for rejection of the prayer of the complainant.

The Ld. Lawyer for complainant while making argument stated that they submitted all documents as asked for in reference to the OP's letter dtd. 27.02.07.    He further stated that the duplicate Registration Certificate Book was issued by the Registering Authority, Nadia on 29.03.07 which was submitted to the OP subsequently.   He submitted for relief as prayed for.

It is admitted that the Hero Honda Motor Cycle of the complainant was insured with the OP Organization and the insurance policy remained valid from 08.10.04 to midnight of 07.10.05.   The said vehicle was stolen from the courtyard of the own house of the complainant within the validity period of the insurance policy for which a complaint was lodged by the complainant with the Dhantala P.S. and the case being No. 31 dtd. 09.02.05 under Section 379 of the I.P.C. was started.  

5

F.I.R., on record, reveals that the said vehicle was stolen at night on 06/07.02.2005.  The complainant informed the OP and also R.T.O. Krishnagar of the matter.  The complainant also lodged his claim with the relevant papers with the OP Organization in reference to the letter dtd. 27.02.07 of the OP excepting Registration Certificate Book in original.  The  Registration Certificate Book in original could not be submitted along with the other papers at the relevant time since this book was kept in the concerned vehicle and was lost when the vehicle was stolen.   

The duplicate Registration Certificate Book was issued by the Registering  Authority,  Nadia  on   29.03.07   which  was   submitted  to  the  OP subsequently.  

The OP closed the file in respect of claim of the complainant on the ground of being failure by the complainant to submit required papers/ documents to the OP in spite of letters / reminders, in reference to letter dtd. 31.03.07.   Again the OP, vide their letter dtd. 09.09.2008, informed the complainant that they might reopen the claim file with the approval of their higher office if the complainant appealed to them along with all documents as per their letter dtd. 27.02.07.    

However, the letter of the complainant addressed to OP reveals that the complainant submitted documents as asked for by the OP excepting the  Registration Certificate Book in original which was subsequently submitted to OP on getting duplicate copy from the Registering Authority, Nadia subsequently.  Letter dtd. 27.02.07 of the OP in respect of reopening of the claim file does not reveal the specific documents remained pending.  Though, the letter of the complainant dtd. 14.03.07 forwarding some documents, was received by the office of the OP on the same date i.e., 14.03.07, OP did not deny the receiving 

6

of said documents.  The OP also did not deny the receiving of duplicate  Registration Certificate Book, issued on 29.03.07 by the Registering Authority, Nadia.   

From above it appears that the vehicle was stolen within the validity period of insurance policy and lingering of OP to settle the claim of the complainant on the alleged ground of non-submission of documents without specifying the pending documents, leads to think that the OP has failed and neglected to settle the claim of the complainant and thus, we can say that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complainant is entitled to get relief. 

 

In view of the above facts and observation we are of opinion that the complainant's case succeeds. 

Hence, 

Ordered,

 

That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest against OP with cost of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only.

 

The OP is directed to pay of Rs. 22,000/- (Rupees twenty two thousand) only towards value of the insured Motor Cycle to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of closing of claim file by the OP i.e., on an from 31.03.07 till realization of the entire amount.

 

The OP is further directed to pay of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only as compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 

7

1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) totaling to Rs. 6000/- (Rupees six thousand) only within 45 days from the date of this order.   If the OP fails to comply with the order, the amount of Rs. 6,000/- will accrue interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of expiry of 45 days till realization. 

 

Hand over a copy of this order to the parties free of cost.

The case is disposed of by 1 month and 28 days.

 

Dictated and corrected by me.

 

K. Mukhopadhyay

    MEMBER

 

S. Bhattacharya   K. Mukhopadhyay            D. K. Basu

          MEMBER           MEMBER        PRESIDENT