Smt. Tanusree Mondal,

wife of Sri Jadav Mondal,

of 97/1, Dakshin Baksara Road, P.S. Shibpur,

District – Howrah.------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.      Cholamondalam M S General Insurance Company Limited,

having its registered office

at ‘Dare House’, 2^nd floor, no. 2 NSC Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001.

2.      Branch Manager,

Cholamondalam M S General Insurance Company Limited,

Chaddildas  Tower, 3^rd floor,

6A, Middleton Street,

Kolkata – 700 071.------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986

wherein the complainant has  prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to pay the claim amount of Rs. 1,16,000/- with accrued interest since 11-07-2008 and to pay compensation to the tune of  Rs. 2 lacs for causing mental agony and prolonged harassment together with litigation costs of  Rs. 30,000/- as the O.P. company did not realize the claim amount against policy no. MPC-00058612-000-00 against standing for insurance of the vehicle being no. WB 30B 4688 owned by the complainant, Tanusri Mondal. The vehicle was stolen on 29-06-2008 in between 10 p.m. to 12 in the midnight by some unknown miscreants. 

2.                  In the written version though admitted the existence of the policy contended

interalia that the complainant intimated the insurance company on 14-07-2008 though the alleged theft occurred on 29-06-2008 and as such he violated the condition no. 1 of the insurance policy ; that the O.Ps. are not legally liable to indemnify the insured for such willful breach ; that there was no deficiency in service. So the complaint is  liable to be dismissed.

3.         Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.      Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the Tata Sumo

being no. WB 30-B-4688 was insured with the O.P. no. 1 company being the insured value of Rs. 1,16,000/-. The complainant paid the sum of Rs. 6,435/- as premium acknowledged by the O.P. no. 2 and the policy remained in force till 08-08-2008. Admittedly the vehicle was stolen by unknown miscreants on 29-06-20008. Extensive search was conducted to retrieve the vehicle but to no effect. The complainant lodged complaint with the Shibpur P.S. which was received by the Chatterjeehat Investigation Centre on 01-07-2008. Shibpur P.S. Case No. 230 dated 02-07-2008 U/S 379 I.P.C. was started.

5.      On 11-07-2008 the O.P. no. 2 was informed through registered post which was

admittedly received on 14-07-2008.  The O.P.’s only contention is that they were informed of the theft after expiry of 14 days and thereby the condition no. 1 was violated. If this be the only criterion to repudiate the claim of the complainant, we must say that the reason is too fragile to merit acceptance. A man of common prudence shall  primarily lay emphasis on extensive search of the stolen vehicle. Complainant left no stone unturned in search of the vehicle. Local P.S. was informed, P.S. case was started. This prompt action on the part of the complainant must not go unrewarded.  She was definitely in perplexed state of mind when she found it stolen. Naturally this delay of 14 days to inform the O.P. no. 2 cannot be regarded fatal to extinguish her hope for reimbursement of the insured sum. 

6.      The cited decision ( Revision Petition no. 2534/2012 cannot be applicable in the

instant case as the FIR was lodged on 05-08-2006 though the theft occurred on 25-07-2006  i.e., after expiry of 11 days unlike the case at hand where the complainant lodged FIR within the lapse of 24 hours. Likewise in the  F.A. no. 321 of 2005 dated 09-12-2009 the FIR was lodged after two days of the incident and more so the vehicle was used as a taxi unlike the case at hand. It is the duty of the investigating agency to conduct search of the stolen vehicle and accordingly the Shibpur P.S. was informed of the same within 24 hours. Naturally, we are of the view that the complainant was very prompt in lodging the F.I.R. Therefore, the delay of 10/11 days in sending the information to the O.P. no. 2 cannot stand in the way of releasing the insured amount.  

      We are, therefore, of the considered view that this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed as we trace gross deficiency in service. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.        

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 103 of 2013 ( HDF 103 of 2013 )  be  and the same is allowed on contest with costs   against  the O.Ps. 

      The O.Ps. be directed to pay the insured amount of Rs. 1,16,000/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. since 11-07-2008 against policy no. MPC-00058612-000-00  within 30 days from the date of this order

      The o.ps. be further directed to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- for causing mental pain and agony and prolonged harassment to the complainant.

      The complainant is further entitled to a litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/ from the O.Ps.

      The complainant is  at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.