SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The Complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s-35 of C.P.A.-2019, (here-in- after called as the “Act”) alleging a “deficiency-in-service” against the Opp. Parties with a prayer for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- against the Ops.
2. The factual matrix of this case is that the complainant bought one Hero Glamour two wheeler on 14.3.2018 from OP No.5 which was subsequently registered before the competent authority bearing Regd. No.OD-01W-3456. The said vehicle in question was insured under the OP No.1 to 4 bearing policy No.3410/00907531/000/00 valid from 18.3.2022 to 17.3.2023. It is stated that the motor cycle in question has been stolen on 13.5.2022 at about 8.00 to 9.00 PM from Nilgiri Bazaar while the vehicle was parked under lock and key. On the same day, the complainant lodged an FIR which was registered as Nilgiri PS Case No.173 dated 18.5.2022. It is further stated that on the same date, the complainant informed the matter to OP No.5 who told that the insurance claim shall be made after submission of the charge sheet. On 19.8.2022, one agent had been to the premises of the complainant and took copy of FIR, Insurance policy, PAN card, Aadhar Card, Electric Bill, 2 nos passport size photographs, original RC Book, Smart Card, Original Key of the vehicle and signatures on plain papers from him. The complainant has further stated that on 25.8.2022, one letter received by the complainant from the Ops wherein it was mentioned that the vehicle was stolen on 13.7.2022. It is not out of place to mention here that the vehicle in question was stolen on 13.5.2022 and the matter of theft was informed to OP No.5 on the same day and the agent came to the premises of the complainant on 19.8.2022 and collected all relevant documents from him. So, the question of delay does not arise at all. That apart, the complainant has submitted one representation before the Ops on 30.8.2022 which was received by them on 1.9.2022, but in vain. Thus, the complainant sent legal notice on 7.11.2022 against the Ops, but the Ops did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, finding no other alternative, the complainant was constrained to file the present case. Hence, this case.
To substantiate his case, the complainant has relied on the following documents, which are placed in the record, as mentioned hereunder-
- Photocopy of policy bond.
- Photocopy of FIR & police papers.
- Photocopy of vehicle particulars.
- Photocopy of legal notices.
- Photocopy of postal registration receipts.
- Photocopy of letter dated 10.8.2022 of Ops in favour of complainant.
- Photocopy of track consignment reports.
3. In the present case, OP No.1 & 4 appeared and filed their joint written version whereas OP No.5 & 6 did not appear irrespective of receipt of the notice, hence, they were set ex parte.
4. OP No.1 to 4, in their written version, not only challenged the cause of action to file the present case but also emphatically stated that the case is not maintainable. These Ops have stated, inter alia, that the proposal for insurance in respect of the vehicle in question bearing policy No.3410/0090753/000/00 covering the period from 18.3.2022 to 17.3.2023. On receipt of the intimation regarding theft of his motor cycle bearing Regd. No.OD-01W-3456, these Ops have taken immediate steps to ascertain the truthfulness of the claim. The fact of theft is required to be intimated to the Ops within 15 days, but the complainant has intimated after 78 days delay violating the policy condition. That apart, these Ops have already discharged their duty perfectly and promptly. Thus, the question of deficiency in service on the part of these Ops does not arise. Therefore, it is prayed that the case of the complainant may be dismissed with cost.
In support of their case, OP No.1 to 4 have relied upon the following documents, which are placed in the record, as mentioned hereunder-
- Photocopy of policy bond in respect of the vehicle.
- Photocopy of claim form.
5. In view of the above averments of parties, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether the Complainant is a Consumer or not?
(ii) Whether the complainant has cause of action to file this case?
(iii) Whether this consumer case is maintainable?
(iv) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
(v) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief, as sought for?
(vi) To what other relief(s), the Complainant is entitled to?
F I N D I N G S
6. From the averments made in the pleadings of both the parties so also the documents produced by them, it is clear that the complainant is the owner of vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-01W-3456 which was insured with the Ops vide policy No.3410/0090753/000/00 covering the period from 18.3.2022 to 17.3.2023. It is the admitted fact that the alleged vehicle was stolen away from Nilgiri Bazaar on 13.5.2022 followed by submission of FIR in the nearest police station and intimation to the renewal agent and submission of claim form before the Ops. As the claim of the complainant did not settle, the complainant filed the present case. From the above, it is clear that the complainant is covered under the definition of a consumer as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Consequently, the complainant has cause of action to file the case and the case is maintainable.
7. Before delve into the merits of the case, it is required to be decided how far the complainant is able to prove his case with regard to the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, if any, committed by the Ops.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the motor cycle in question has been stolen on 13.5.2022 at about 8.00 to 9.00 PM from Nilgiri Bazaar while he parked his vehicle. On the very day, he lodged FIR which was registered as Nilgiri PS Case No.173 dated 18.5.2022. It is further submitted that on the same day, the complainant informed the matter to OP No.5 who told that the insurance claim shall be made after submission of the charge sheet. On 19.8.2022, one agent had been to the premises of the complainant and took copy of FIR, Insurance policy, PAN card, Aadhar Card, Electric Bill, two passport size photographs, original RC Book, Smart Card, Original Key of the vehicle and signatures on plain papers from him. It is further submitted that on 25.8.2022, one letter received from the Ops wherein it was mentioned that the vehicle was stolen on 13.7.2022. instead of 13.5.2022. When the matter of theft was informed to OP No.5 on the same day and the agent came to the premises of the complainant on 19.8.2022 and collected all relevant documents from him, the question of delay, as agitated by the contesting Ops, does not arise at all. That apart, the complainant has submitted one representation before the Ops on 30.8.2022 which was received by them on 1.9.2022, but in vain. Thus, the complainant sent legal notice on 7.11.2022 against the Ops, but the Ops did not pay any heed to it. From the above nature and conduct of the Ops, a case of deficiency in service clearly attributes against them.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 to 4 has submitted that on receipt of the intimation regarding theft of the motor cycle of the complainant bearing Regd. No.OD-01W-3456, these Ops have taken immediate steps to ascertain the truthfulness of the claim. The fact of theft is required to be intimated to the Ops within 15 days, but the complainant has intimated after 78 days delay violating the policy condition. That apart, these Ops have already discharged their duty perfectly and promptly. Thus, the question of deficiency in service on the part of these Ops does not arise.
10. Undisputedly, the complainant is the owner of alleged motor cycle bearing Registration No. OD-01W-3456 which was insured with the OP No.1 to 4 vide policy No. 3410/0090753/000/00 covering the period from 18.3.2022 to 17.3.2023, a reveals from Annexure-1 & Annexure-A. Further, it is revealed that the complainant has declared the value of the vehicle in question at Rs.35,873/-. From the Annexure-2 series, it is made out that the vehicle in question was stolen away on 13.5.2022 at about 8.00 PM which was parked near K.C. High School, Nilgiri. It is the claim of the complainant that soon after theft of the motor cycle in question, the complainant intimated the OP No.5 about the theft of his motor cycle, who assured him that the insurance claim shall be made after submission of charge sheet of the criminal case. On 19.8.2022, one agent came to the house of the complainant and took away all the relevant documents from him with his signature on some blank papers. Further, the contesting Ops have sent a letter dated 10.8.2022 in favour of the complainant wherein it is mentioned that the alleged theft took place on 13.7.2022 and the claim was intimated to them belatedly on 6.8.2022. From Annexure-1, the policy schedule-cum-certificate of insurance, it is found that it has been issued by the OP-Insurance company. But interestingly, in the said policy certificate, it has been mentioned “For renewals contact Sanjib Kumar Mohapatra”, who is none other than their agent and associated with OP No.5. It is the claim of the complainant that on 13.5.2022, when he intimated regarding theft of his motor cycle to OP No.5, at that time OP No.5 assured him that the insurance claim shall be made after submission of charge sheet in the criminal proceeding. In this case, it is seen that OP No.5 was set ex parte, thus, he did not contest the case. Had he been contested the case, the OP No.5 must have challenged the version of the complainant. Thus, the version of the complainant that he had intimated the fact of theft of his motor cycle on the very day goes unchallenged. So, the question that the complainant had intimated the Insurance Company at a belated stage does not arise when the complainant has emphatically stated that on the same day he intimated the fact of theft of his motor cycle to OP No.5. Therefore, the claim of the contesting Ops that the complainant had intimated them about the theft of his motor cycle on 6.8.2022 i.e. after 78 days sounds no good.
11. On the other hand, it is found that the grounds, as agitated by the OP-Insurance company, for repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the OP-Insurance company that the complainant had intimated the fact of theft of his motor cycle at a belated stage. Therefore, the Insurance Company should have repudiated the claim of the complainant then and there, but why they have sent one agent to the house of the complainant for collection of relevant documents on 19.8.2022. The OP-Insurance Company has not stated a single line that the complainant has submitted false and fabricated documents before them while submitting claim form or the documents collected by their agent on 19.8.2022 all are manufactured. That apart, on the ground of receipt of intimation in delay is not a good ground to repudiate the claim of the complainant and by that the Insurance Company cannot by itself escape from their liability. Therefore, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the OP-Insurance Company has not properly assessed and weighed and inferred in correct perspective keeping in view totality of facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety. On facts, the OP-Insurance Company should have emphatically deigned to consider the gravity of the case as good enough to settle the claim of the complainant. Thus, repudiation of the claim of the complainant is held to be unjust and illegal. Consequently, the deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Insurance Company clearly attributed. Hence, the OP-Insurance Company i.e. OP No.1 to 4 & 6 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, as claimed by the complainant. It is seen that OP No.5 is the dealer of Hero Moto Corp from whom the complainant had purchased his motor cycle in question. Thus, OP No.5 has no role to play in the matter of claiming insurance. Hence, the case against OP No.5 is dismissed.
Hence, it is ordered -
O R D E R
The complaint of the complainant be and the same is allowed on contest against OPs No.1 to 4, on ex parte against OP No.6 and dismissed against OP No.5. The OPs No.1 to 4 & 6 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.35,873/-, the insurance value of the vehicle, along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and litigation cost to the complainant within two months hence, failing which the complainant is at liberty to realise the same through the process of law.
Pronounced in the open court of this Commission, this the 30th day of April, 2024 under signature & seal of the commission.
