Tripura

West Tripura

CC/13/2016

Sri Sankar Deb. - Complainant(s)

Versus

District Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.P.Roy, Mr.S.Deb.

07 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA  :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 13 of 2016

Sri Sankar Deb,
S/O- Lt. Rakhal Chandra Deb,
Bhattapukur, P.S. A. D. Nagar,
Agartala, West Tripura.            .….…...Complainant.

VERSUS

District Manager, 
National Insurance Company Ltd.,
DM Agartala Divisional Office,
41. A. K. Road,
Agartala, West Tripura.        ..............Opposite parties.

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant        : Sri Bhaskar Deb,
                      Smt. Sujata Deb(Gupta),
                      Smt. Paramita Roy,
                      Advocates.

For the O.Ps                 : Sri Sandip Datta Choudhury,
                      Advocate.

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  07.06.2016

J U D G M E N T 
        This case was filed by one Sankar Deb against the District Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. alleging about the deficiency of service. It is alleged that on 13.03.15 the bike of the petitioner was stolen away by  unknown miscreants. He lodged FIR in the police station after 14 days  on 27.03.15. Bike was not recovered. Then on 03.04.15 he informed the act  of theft to the insurance company. Police submitted final report after investigation as the identity of the thieves were not revealed. Petitioner then made claim for getting the insured amount for lost bike but the O.P. National Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that there was delay in filing FIR and also informing the insurer about the theft. Petitioner then filed this prayer for compensation amounting to Rs.1,54,500/- . 

2.        O.P. appeared, filed W.S denying the claim. It is stated in the W.S that as per terms and conditions petitioner was duty bound to inform the police station within 24 hours of theft and also to the Insurance Company within 48 hours. This  terms and conditions was not complied. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation. There is no deficiency of service by the O.P.

3.        On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination.
        (i) Whether  the petitioner violated the terms and condition of the policy certificate?
        (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation as claim for the deficiency of service of the O.P.?
        
4.        Petitioner produced Medical prescription, copy of Insurance Policy, copy of FIR, letter to the Insurance Company, Registration, driving license,  medical certificate, blood test report, Final report, Exhibit -1 Series. 

5.        Petitioner also examined one witness, Sankar Deb i.e., the petitioner himself.
6.        O.P. on the other hand produced the policy and declined to give any oral evidence.

7.        On the basis of evidence given by both the parties we shall now determine the above points.

        FINDINGS AND DECISIONS:
8.        In this case only point is about the violation of terms and conditions of the policy certificate. In the policy certificate it is clearly  written that ''no theft claim is payable if not reported  to police station within 24 hours and insurer within 48 hours of occurrence.'' From the FIR as produced by the petitioner it is clear that Sankar Deb informed to Police station on 27.03.15 stating in the FIR that on 13.03.15 the bike Pulsar was missing. It was mentioned that due to mental stress FIR could not submitted. Petitioner was supposed to file the FIR on 14.03.15 as per terms of the policy within 24 hours. But he filed the FIR after 13 days on 27.03.15 on the ground of his mental stress.

9.        Again he was to inform the insurer i.e., National Insurance company within 48 hours i.e., by 15.03.15. But he informed the National Insurance company by a detailed letter on 3rd April 2015 i.e., after 18 days. Cause of delay not explained in the prayer submitted to the National Insurance company on 3rd July, 2015. Petitioner also admitted it and at the time of giving  evidence he stated that due to high pressure and high blood sugar he could not file the information in right time. From the medical report it is found that his blood sugar level report lightly above normal. It is 120 and 100 on fasting. It is not much. This can not be good cause for  violation of the terms and condition of policy. 

10.        Learned counsel for the O.P. referred to the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Judgment pronounced on 09.12.2009. In that case there was 4 days delay in lodging the FIR and thereafter 10 days delay in informing the insurance company. Those delay was not considered as reasonable time. It was not considered as immediately given information. Therefore, National Consumer Disputes Redresssal Commission  rejected the claim. 
    
11.        The decision of the Supreme Court in this regard was published in 2008 11 SCC 256. Supreme Court viewed that delay in lodging FIR after 2 days coming to know about theft and 9 days to the Insurance Company can be fatal as in the meantime the car could have travel a long distance or may have been dismantled by that time and sold to other. For those reasons the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Supreme Court. 

12.        Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Decision was given on 19th July, 2012. In that case information to the Police station was given on the date of theft on 25.08.2010. Complainant was searching the vehicle so intimation to Insurance company given after 5 days on 30.08.2010. In that case State Commission viewed that this type of violation of terms of policy can not be said to be much fatal. But in this case delay in lodging FIR is 14 days. And thereafter inordinate delay of 17 days in informing the insurance company. This is total violation of policy condition. Terms of the policy have to be construed as it is and nothing can be added or subtract from the same.  The policy provided that in case of theft matter should be reported within 24 hours to P.S. Also the matter should be reported to the insurer Insurance company within 48 hours. The terms of the policy was totally violated by the petitioner for lame excuse of mental agony. 

13.        For the aforesaid reasons as discussed we are of the view that as the petitioner violated the policy terms and conditions he is not entitled to get any compensation from the insurance company. Petitioner is not entitled to get any cost. Both the points are decided accordingly against the petitioner. In view of our above findings over the two points this case is U/S 12 of the C.P. filed by the complainant is dismissed. No cost allowed.  

                        Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.