This complaint under the provision of C.P. Act, 2019 was initially filed against the Opposite Parties (O.P.s)- 1) Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Registered /Head Office at:-2^nd Floor, Dare House, 2 N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai, P.S.- Chennai G.P.O., P.S.- C1 Flower Bazar, Pin Code- 600001, Tamil Nadu, 2) Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Kolkata Branch, Chhabildass Towers, 3^rd Floor, 6A, Middleton Street, Kolkata, P.O.- Little Russel Stret, P.S.- Kolkata Police Booth, Pin Code- 700071, West Bengal, 3) Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, 2^nd Floor, Sona Wheel Building, 3^rd Mile, Salugara, Near Vega Circle Mall, Siliguri, P.O. & P.S.- Bhaktinagar, Dist.- Jalpaiguri- 734008 (W.B.) who contested the case by filing Written Version (W.V.).

The case of the compliment as per her complaint is as follows-

The complainant argued in his plaint that he purchased a vehicle from one Ali Mohd which was transferred to him on 14/05/2019 and after registration the complainant became the registered owner of a truck (hereinafter referred as “vehicle” for the sake of brevity) bearing registration number WB – 85/2087, Make – Tata Motors Limited, Model – LPT 2518TCEX EII, Chassis No. MAT448035CAH06999, Engine No.21H84068881. The complainant also added that the said vehicle was the complainant’s only source of livelihood and he took a General Insurance Policy for his aforesaid vehicle by paying a total premium of Rs.53,636/-(Rupees Fifty Three Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Six) only under the name as “Goods Carrying Vehicles Package Policy’’ vide policy No. 3379/02808606/000/00 from the O.P.s on 10/11/2020 which was valid from 11/11/2020 to 10/11/2021 midnight and the IDV of the vehicle for the Policy No. 3379/02808606/000/00 dated 10/11/2020 was Rs.7,50,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand) only.

The complainant also argued that on 20/02/2021 the complainant parked his vehicle at Changrabandha Truck Owner’s Association’s Parking Zone and thereafter on 25/02/2021 he reached the parking zone and found that his vehicle was not in there and immediately on 26/02/2021 he lodged a written complaint at Mekhliganj Police Station and after a constant persuasion the Mekhliganj Police Station initiated a specific case being F.I.R. No. 99/2021, G.R. Case being No. 189/2021 U/S 379 of I.P.C., 1860 dated 23/04/2021. The complainant also added that after the said incident immediately he informed the same to the O.P.s in their Toll Free No. 1800 208 5544 and his said claim was registered by the O.P.s vide claim No. 3379332989 and on 20/04/2021 the O.P.s issued a letter through their “North East Agencies” and requested the complainant to provide certain documents to process his insurance and accordingly on 29.04.2021 the complainant provided all the documents to them and thereafter the O.P.s repudiated the complainant’s claim which was intimated to the complainant on 07/07/2021.

The complainant also argued in his plaint that several times he tried to communicate with the O.P.s over phone regarding his legitimate claim but did not get any result and then on 18/12/2021 he sent a legal notice to the O.P.s which was received by O.P. No.1 and 3 on 23/12/2021 and O.P. No.2 on 22/12/2021 but they did not respond to the same and finally finding no other alternative the complainant lodged this case.

 The prayers of complainant are as follows: -

1. To pass an order directing the O.P.s to pay the claim amount according to the said insurance policy of Rs.7,50,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand) only to the complainant along with interest @24% per annum from 29/04/2021 till the date of realization.
2. To pass an order directing the O.P.s to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) only mental harassment and agony caused to the complainant for a long tenure.  
3. To pass an order directing the O.P.s to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) only as compensation for negligence and deficiency in service.
4.  To pass an order directing the O.P.s to pay litigation cost to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only.

(That the total claim amount id Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh) only without any other reliefs apart from the reliefs claimed).

           List of Documents filed by the complainant:

1. Photocopy of Registration Certificate. (Page No. 09)
2. Photocopy of Certificate of Insurance. (Page No. 10 to 11)
3. Photocopy of F.I.R. dated 26/02/2021. (Page No. 12)
4. Photocopy of Formal F.I.R. dated 23/04/2021. (Page No. 13 to 16)
5. Photocopy of letter demanding documents sent by the intermediary of O.P.s “North East Agencies” dated 02/04/2021 along with envelope. (Page No. 17 to 19)
6. Photocopy of the Postal Receipts acknowledging the documents sent to the intermediary of O.P.s “North East Agencies” dated 29/04/2021. (Page No. 20)
7. Photocopy of the claim repudiation letter dated 07/07/2021. (Page No. 21)
8. Photocopy of Police Final Report dated 30/09/2021. (Page No. 22 to 25)
9. Photocopy of Legal Notice dated 18/12/2021 along with postal receipts and postal tracking reports. (Page No. 26 to 33)

           On behalf of the O.P.s, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Registered /Head Office at:-2^nd Floor, Dare House, 2 N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai, P.S.- Chennai G.P.O., P.S.- C1 Flower Bazar, Pin Code- 600001, Tamil Nadu, 2) Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Kolkata Branch, Chhabildass Towers, 3^rd Floor, 6A, Middleton Street, Kolkata, P.O.- Little Russel Stret, P.S.- Kolkata Police Booth, Pin Code- 700071, West Bengal, 3) Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, 2^nd Floor, Sona Wheel Building, 3^rd Mile, Salugara, Near Vega Circle Mall, Siliguri, P.O. & P.S.- Bhaktinagar, Dist.- Jalpaiguri- 734008 (W.B.) who contested the case by filing Written Version (W.V.).and in their W.V. the O.P.s categorically denied all the allegations made by the complainant.     

The O.P.s in his Written Version (W.V.) argued that there was 34 days of delay in intimating the claim but the insured and the actual/ present owner could not provide proper clarification for the delay and also the claimant did not lodge any complaint before the local P.S. viz. Mekhliganj Police Station in respect of the alleged theft as per provision of law and without such complaint to the police allegation of theft is not proven prima facie. The O.P.s added due to the willful breach of the policy conditions by the insured, the O.P.s were not liable to pay any compensation to the insured and the application for complaint was bad in view of non compliance of the provision for claim as per rule. The O.P.s also argue that the complainant alleged date was written as 25/02/2021 but as per the intimation sheet submitted to the O.P.s the date of incident was mentioned as 25/03/2021 and hence it was clear that the alleged date was manipulated.  The O.P.s also added that one key was lost along with the insured vehicle bearing No. WB-85-2078 and another key had been lying with the claimant or owner as applicable and thus gross negligence on part of the claimant side was proved which amounts to violation of the policy conditions.

The O.P.s also argued in their W.V. that on a careful perusal of claim documents and also after independent inquiry, it was referred that the vehicle had been sold to Mr. Sahidul Islam before the date of theft and in view of these established facts, it was concluded that the complainant was not having any insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of theft. The O.P.s also added that as per claim documents of complainant it had been observed that on 25/03/2021 his vehicle was parked at Changrabandha Truck Association parking area, Mekhliganj and the vehicle ignition key was left in the vehicle and this was resulted in theft and by letter dated 07/07/2021 the claim was rightly repudiated by the O.P.s.  The O.P.s also argued that at the time of alleged theft, the said vehicle bearing No. WB-85-2087 owned by Md. Sahudul Islam who purchased the said vehicle from the complainant on 20/03/2020 and the said vehicle was lastly driven by one Manum Islam who did not have any driving license. The O.P. also added in their W.V. that being company and a corporate sector guided by company’s rules and regulations they did not adopt any unfair trade practice in repudiating the alleged claim there was no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.s.  

Points for consideration

1) Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2) Whether the case is maintainable under the CP act 2019?

3) Whether this Commission has its jurisdiction to decide this case? 

4) Whether there is any deficiency in service in the part of the O.P. as alleged by the complainant?

5) Is the complainant is entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for? If so, what extent?

         Decision with reason:-

All the points are taken up together for consideration and decision.

Seen and perused the complaint petition and Written Version (W.V.) filed by the parties which are supported by the affidavit, documents filed by the parties. We are also heard arguments of both the parties in full length.

The O.P. No.3 carries his business P.O. & P.S.- Bhaktinagar, Dist.- Jalpaiguri which falls in the jurisdiction of Jalpaiguri and thus, this Commission has its territorial jurisdiction to decide this case.

In this case, the complainant took a General Insurance Policy for his aforesaid vehicle (bearing registration number WB – 85/2087, Make – Tata Motors Limited, Model – LPT 2518TCEX EII, Chassis No. MAT448035CAH06999, Engine No.21H84068881) by paying a total premium of Rs.53,636/-(Rupees Fifty Three Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Six) only under the name as “Goods Carrying Vehicles Package Policy’’ vide policy No. 3379/02808606/000/00 from the O.P.s on 10/11/2020 which was valid from 11/11/2020 to 10/11/2021 midnight and the IDV of the vehicle for the Policy No. 3379/02808606/000/00 dated 10/11/2020 was Rs.7,50,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand) only and this Commission holds that the complainant is a very much consumer under the as per C.P. Act 2019.

As per the statement of the complainant, he purchased a vehicle from one Ali Mohd which was transferred to him on 14/05/2019 and after registration the complainant became the registered owner of a truck (hereinafter referred as “vehicle” for the sake of brevity) bearing registration number WB – 85/2087, Make – Tata Motors Limited, Model – LPT 2518TCEX EII, Chassis No. MAT448035CAH06999, Engine No.21H84068881. The complainant also took a General Insurance Policy for his aforesaid vehicle by paying a total premium of Rs.53,636/-(Rupees Fifty Three Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Six) only under the name as “Goods Carrying Vehicles Package Policy’’ vide policy No. 3379/02808606/000/00 from the O.P.s on 10/11/2020 which was valid from 11/11/2020 to 10/11/2021 midnight and the IDV of the vehicle for the Policy No. 3379/02808606/000/00 dated 10/11/2020 was Rs.7,50,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand) only.

On 20/02/2021 the complainant parked his vehicle at Changrabandha Truck Owner’s Association’s Parking Zone and thereafter on 25/02/2021 he found that his vehicle was not in there and immediately he lodged a written complaint at Mekhliganj Police Station and after a constant persuasion the Mekhliganj Police Station initiated a specific case being F.I.R. No. 99/2021, G.R. Case being No. 189/2021 U/S 379 of I.P.C., 1860 dated 23/04/2021. After the said incident immediately the complainant informed the same to the O.P.s in their Toll Free No. 1800 208 5544 and his said claim was registered by the O.P.s vide claim No. 3379332989 and on 20/04/2021 the O.P.s issued a letter through their “North East Agencies” and requested the complainant to provide certain documents to process his insurance and accordingly on 29.04.2021 the complainant provided all the documents to them and thereafter the O.P.s repudiated the complainant’s claim which was intimated to the complainant on 07/07/2021.

In support of his statement, the complainant referred some judgments, e.g.- (i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nitin Khandelwal, reported in (2008) 11 SCC 259 and (ii) Gurshinder Sing v. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., 2020 (11) SCC 612.

In support of their defense, the O.P.s argued in their Written Version that there was 34 days of delay in intimating the claim but the insured and the actual/ present owner could not provide proper clarification for the delay and also the claimant did not lodge any complaint before the local P.S. viz. Mekhliganj Police Station in respect of the alleged theft as per provision of law and without such complaint to the police allegation of theft is not proven prima facie. The O.P.s also added that due to the willful breach of the policy conditions by the insured, the O.P.s were not liable to pay any compensation to the insured and the application for complaint was bad in view of non compliance of the provision for claim as per rule. The O.P.s also argue that the complainant alleged date was written as 25/02/2021 but as per the intimation sheet submitted to the O.P.s the date of incident was mentioned as 25/03/2021 and hence it was clear that the alleged date was manipulated.  The O.P.s also added that one key was lost along with the insured vehicle bearing No. WB-85-2078 and another key had been lying with the claimant or owner as applicable and thus gross negligence on part of the claimant side was proved which amounts to violation of the policy conditions.

The O.P.s also given statement that after a careful perusal of claim documents and also after independent inquiry, it was referred that the vehicle had been sold to Mr. Sahidul Islam before the date of theft and in view of these established facts, it was concluded that the complainant was not having any insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of theft. The O.P.s also added that as per claim documents of complainant it had been observed that on 25/03/2021 his vehicle was parked at Changrabandha Truck Association parking area, Mekhliganj and the vehicle ignition key was left in the vehicle and this was resulted in theft and by letter dated 07/07/2021 the claim was rightly repudiated by the O.P.s.  The O.P.s also argued that at the time of alleged theft, the said vehicle bearing No. WB-85-2087 owned by Md. Sahudul Islam who purchased the said vehicle from the complainant on 20/03/2020 and the said vehicle was lastly driven by one Manum Islam who did not have any driving license. The O.P. also added in their W.V. that being company and a corporate sector guided by company’s rules and regulations they did not adopt any unfair trade practice in repudiating the alleged claim there was no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.s.

In this instant case, on 20/02/2021 the complainant parked his vehicle at Changrabandha Truck Owner’s Association’s Parking Zone and thereafter on 25/02/2021 found that his vehicle was not in there and immediately on 26/02/2021 he lodged a written complaint at Mekhliganj Police Station. The complainant had lodged the F.I.R. immediately after the theft of the vehicle occurred and when the police had lodged a final report after the vehicle was not traced, mere delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of theft cannot be ground to deny the claim of the complainant. This Commission is also of the view that if the complainant is denied the claim merely on the ground that there is some delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft, it would be taking a hyper technical view.

The O.P.s told in their W.V. that they conducted an independent inquiry but no such document was field by the O.P.s.

This Commission finds that the C.P. Act aims at protecting the interest of the consumers and it being beneficial legislation deserves pragmatic construction. This Commission also finds that mere delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the theft of the vehicle should not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claim which has been otherwise proved to be genuine. The immediate notice/ intimation to the Insurance Company is in the context of occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the 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.

In this instant case, we can refer the decision of the Hon'ble NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI, IV (2023) CPJ 240 (NC) where it held that-

In this situation the Commission always follows the decision of the Hon’ble NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION and this Commission has no right to ignore the decision of the Hon’ble NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION of India.

          In view of the above, we find that repudiation of the claim of the complainant on the sole ground that there was delay of 34 days in intimating the Insurance Company is not valid.

Hence, it is therefore,

ORDERED

That the Consumer Case No. 04/2022 be and same is allowed in contest against the O.P.s (Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited).  

The complainant do get an award of Rs 7,50,000 /- (Rupees Seven Lakh and Fifty Thousand) only along with the simple interest @ 6% Per Annum from the date of filing of this case, i.e., 25/01/2022 till the realization of the total amount. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only for mental pain and agony and litigation cost and O.P. is also directed to deposit Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only to Consumer Legal Aid Account within 30 days from the date of this order.     

          Let a copy of this judgment be given to the parties directly or through their representative Ld. Advocate for compliance free of cost.