BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 39 of 2013
Sams Uddin Laskar, ………………………………………………………. Complainant.
-V/S-
1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Represented by its Divisional Manager having office at Banipara,
Silchar-788001, P.S. Silchar, Dist. Cachar, Assam.
2. The Managing Director/Chairman
Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd.
No. 1 Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600032.
3. The Manager,
Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd.
Hailakandi Road, Opp. Silchar Automobiles,
Silchar-788005, P.S. Silchar, Dist. Cachar, Assaam.………… Opp. Party
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared :- Imad Uddin Bulbul, Advocate for the complainant.
Sri Shubrendu Sekhar Dutta, Adocate for O.P. No.1.
None for O.P No. 2 & O.P. No. 3
Date of evidence………………………………. 17-05-2014, 17-06-2014
Date of written argument…………………….. 10/03/2016
Date of argument…………….......................... 24-05-2017
Date of judgment……………………………... 22-06-2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(Sri Bishnu Debnath)
- Mr. Sams Uddin Laskar purchased a Tata Truck bearing Chassis No. MSIAWJFCIARBD5101, Engine No. BAH666954 on 15-02-2011 for Rs.10,18,557/- on finance by Hindustan Leyland Finance Ltd., Silchar (O.P No.3). The O.P No.3 financed Rs.9,16,000/- and complainant deposited margin money (Down Payment) of Rs.1,02,557/-. The loan period was 4 (four) years with the rate of interest 7.75% per annum. The total installment was 42 (Forty two) and EMI was Rs.28,430/-. The vehicle was insured with the initiation of the O.P No. 3 with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Silchar. Accordingly, the Insurance Policy No. 53060031100100006192 issued covering risk period from 15-02-2011 to 14-02-2012. The sum assured of the vehicle was Rs.9,67,100/-.
- On 04-10-2011 the said vehicle was proceeding toward Imphal from Silchar with load of Onions and Mussoorie Dal. While the vehicle reached at Mile Stone No.92 at N.H.37 some miscreant set fire on the vehicle. In consequence the vehicle had been completely burnt with loaded goods. Accordingly, the driver Md. Jalal Uddin Laskar of Water Works Road, Madhurbond, Silchar lodged FIR to the O/C Noney Police out post. In course of process the O/C, Nungba P.S registered the FIR No. 27(10) 2011-NBA-P.S. U/S 435/400 IPC and U/S 25(I-B) Arms Act. The case was investigated by ASI Basir Uddin of Noney Police out post and submitted certificate regarding fate of investigation. It is certified by the Investigation officer as below:-
“During the course of the investigation, among other things, inspected the scene of crime and ascertained the fact of the case. The Tata Truck in question was completely burnt down. Bags of Onion and Mussoorie Dal which were loaded on the aforementioned Truck were also completely burnt down. The charred remain of the ill-fated truck was seized under a formal seizure memo in connection with the case.”
- However, the incident above was informed to the O.P No.3 promptly and the O.P assured that necessary step would be taken for compensation and adjustment of the loan amount. As nothing advance, the complainant again on 07-11-2011 informed the O.P No.3 in writing about the incidence but in vain. Accordingly, a notice dated 25-07-2013 served to the O.Ps including Insurance Company. Subsequently with necessary correction serve a fresh notice to O.Ps on 14-08-2013. The O.P No.1 the Insurance Co. Ltd. on reply to the notice dated 25-07-2013 vide letter No. 530600/Claim/Nag/2013/854, dated 31-07-2013 informed the complainant that claim is not tenable because information of alleged incident brought to the notice of O.P No.1 at a belated stage for which company is not in a position to get the firsthand knowledge.
- The Insurance Co. in its W/S stated inter-alia that the complainant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy inasmuch as the incidence was not informed immediately after occurrence and as such disentitled from getting any benefit under the Insurance Policy. The O.P No.2 and 3 remain absent without step during hearing. For which the case has been proceeded exparte against them.
- During hearing the complainant deposed and exhibited some documents. Loan Agreement, Insurance Policy and Police Report are also annexed with the evidence. The O.P No.1 examined the Divisional Manager, Sri Raju Rajak and exhibited Insurance Policy, claim application, claim repudiation letter etc. The terms and conditions of Insurance Policy is also exhibited as Ext.D.
- Heard argument of both side counsels and perused the evidence on record and written argument of the parties.
- In this case, the O.P No.1 took a plea that the complainant did not inform the incidence in time for which the O.P No.1 unable to investigate and assessed the damages. However, the complainant by adducing evidence stated that matter was informed to the O.P No.3 immediately after incidence. He also tried to justify as why he informed the O.P No.3 only. The justification cited by the complainant that as per instruction of the O.P No.3 i.e. Financer the matter would be dealing by the O.P No.3 for which the information was not given to the O.P No.1 by the complainant in time. But as per terms and conditions of Insurance Policy nothing found to conclude the fact that the O.P No.3 is responsible to sending information of incidence of getting fire to the insured vehicle to the insurer. No documentary proof is furnished in that aspect by the complainant for entrustment of the duty to the O.P No.3. That is why, from evidence on record, it is crystal clear that the information about the incidence was brought to the knowledge of the O.P No.1 after a long gap from the date of incidence. So, there is a latches on the part of the complainant for information given lately.
- However, the plea of the O.P No.1 is that due to late information the O.P No.1 could not investigate the case to assess the damages. However, the complainant submitted police investigation report vide Annexure-D. In that certificate police clearly mentioned that the vehicle was completely damaged by fire on the aforementioned date and time on the NH No.37 and the charred remain of the ill-fated Truck seized under a formal seizure memo. The said document is not challenged by the O.P No.1. Rather we find not only the police report but also copy of FIR and statement of the driver of the vehicle recorded by investigation officer.
- So, it is concluded that the vehicle was completely damaged by fire at the time of plying on the N.H. No.37 on 04-10-2011. Hence, if the said facts are believed to be true and reliable, than it is not at all difficult to the contesting O.P No.1 to assess the damage of the vehicle that value remains zero.
- Therefore, in this case if the O.P really wanted to settle the claim might apply prudent mind but did not do so as on intention to deprive the complainant from right to compensation. Hence, in our view repudiation of claim of the complaint on the above unjustified ground and reasoning is deficiency of service. Therefore, the O.P No.1 is liable to make payment of sum assured of the vehicle after statutory deduction of depreciation of the value of rubber item of the vehicle. Further, the O.P No.1 is liable to pay cost of the proceeding of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One thousand) only and compensation for mental agony of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand) only. Of course the O.P No.3 is at liberty to realize the balance unpaid loan amount from the complainant by applying with a detail to this Forum. The application if any of the O.P. No.3 may be entertained only after payment of the awarded amount.
- The O.P No.1 is asked to make payment of awarded amount within 45 days from today. In default, interest @ 10%.P.A. will fetch the awarded amount till realization of full amount.
- With the above, this case is disposed of on contest. Supply free certified copy of this judgment to the parties.
Given under the hand of the President and Members of this District Forum and seal of the Office of the District Forum on this the 22th day of June, 2017.
