Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 as amended till date is allowed on contest with costs of Rs. 2,000/- against the o.p.
That the complainant is entitled to the insured sum to the tune of Rs. 39,950/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing his prayer before the company till full satisfaction of the order of this Court.
That the complainant is further entitled to Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and sufferings he had to withstand.
That the O.P., National Insurance Co. Ltd. do pay the total sum of Rs. 46,950/- ( Rs. 2,000 + Rs. 39,950 + Rs. 5,000) together with interest of the insured sum of Rs. 39,950/- within 30 days from the date of this order failing the complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs, as per rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE OF FILING : 03-08-2011.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 30-12-2011.
Ranjan Seth,
Swarupnagar, Lane No. 3, P.O. Dankuni,
P.S. Dankuni, District – Hooghly,
PIN – 712311.------------------------------------------------------------------ COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
Divisional Managar,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Howrah Divisional Office,
22, G.T. Road ( S ),
District - Howrah,
PIN – 711101. -----------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY(S).
P R E S E N T
1. Hon’ble President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya.
2. Hon’ble Member : Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya.
C O U N S E L
Representatives for the complainant : Complainant himself.
Representative for the opposite party : Shri Subrata Ghosh,
Ld. Advocate.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. This is to consider an application U/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.
2. Put briefly the fact of the case is the motor cycle being no. WB 16T 6023 was stolen near Seva Nursing Home on 08-07-2009 in between 9 .10 pm. to 9.30 p.m. ( T. N. Mukherjee Road, approaching Delhi Road, Hooghly ). Though the motor bike had valid insurance policy from 21-10-2008 to 20-10-2009, the O.P. insurance company inspite of proper information turned a deaf ear and all the efforts of the complainant for reimbursement yielded no result. Hence the case.
3. The o.p. in his written version denied the allegation of harassment and stated interalia that though all the requisite papers were received by the insurance office, the letter of subrogation in non judicial stamp paper duly signed by the insured in each page was not received. However, the claim paper was placed before the Claim Officer and on 24-03-2011; cheque was issued for Rs. 39,950/- vide cheque no. 304885 dated 24-03-2010. As the complainant did not turn up inspite of proper information, the Claim Officer placed the file to Divisional Manager on 18-05-2010 and the Divisional Manager noted that ‘insured not interested to receive the cheque’. Accordingly the cheque was cancelled after expiry of two months. The O.P. is still ready to handover the cheque which is due to the complainant.
4. In view of the pleadings of the parties following points arose for determination :
Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. ?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Admittedly the motor bike was stolen on 08-07-2009, F.IR. was lodged, investigation started. As the accused could not be detected, final report was submitted before the Court of Ld. A.C.J.M., Srirampur. Admittedly the O.P. issued a cheque for Rs. 39,950/- vide cheque no. 304885 dated 24-03-2010. But the contention of the O.P. that the complainant did not visit the office to receive the cheque inspite of proper information does not appear convincing. Ld. Lawyer for the o.p. submitted that the complainant was informed through the agent. But surprisingly we do not trace any letter of information to the complainant or any postal noting that the complainant was not available or refused to receive the cheque. So the noting of the Divisional Manager that the complainant was not interested to receive the cheque is just a myth. We never dispute that the cheque was not issued. But the incident of issuing of cheque was never intimated to the complainant properly, otherwise what should be the precious reason behind non receipt of the cheque by the complainant ? This is our common experience that whenever the insured approaches the insurer, he is to shoulder considerable hassles and cross the hazardous to get the desired relief from the authority. It is also our common experience that the insured some times are treated like the unwanted person in the office whenever the question of reimbursement does arise.
6. Be that as it may, in view of the candid submission of the ld. Lawyer for the O.P. we are of the view that the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. With respect to the compensation we are not inclined to allow the prayer of the complainant in toto. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 as amended till date is allowed on contest with costs of Rs. 2,000/- against the o.p.
That the complainant is entitled to the insured sum to the tune of Rs. 39,950/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing his prayer before the company till full satisfaction of the order of this Court.
That the complainant is further entitled to Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and sufferings he had to withstand.
That the O.P., National Insurance Co. Ltd. do pay the total sum of Rs. 46,950/- ( Rs. 2,000 + Rs. 39,950 + Rs. 5,000) together with interest of the insured sum of Rs. 39,950/- within 30 days from the date of this order failing the complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs, as per rule.
