BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 27 of 2014
Sri Sushil Kumar Das, …………………………………………………. Complainant.
-V/S-
1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Represented by- The Divisional Manager
Club Road, Capital Travels Building, Silchar-1
Dist. Cachar, Assam. Opp. Party
2. Sri Ratan Kurmi,
Of Kurmi Bungalow Road, Ambicapatty,
P.O. & P.S. Silchar-4 Proforam O.P.
Dist. Cachar, Assam.
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 :- Sri Rajat Ghosh , Advocate for the complainant.
Sri A. K. Deblaskar, Advocate for the O.P.
Date of evidence………………. 10-12-2014, 20-02-2015
Date of argument……………... 18-05-2015, 27-07-2015
Date of judgment……………… 17-05-2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(Sri Bishnu Debnath)
- The complainant Sri. Sushil Kumar Das was registered owner of Truck bearing Registration No. MZ 01C/8341. The said vehicle was under coverage of Insurance Policy No. 530600/31/05/00004148 for period from 10/08/2005 to 09/08/2006. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Silchar Division is the Insurer. On 06/07/2006 night the Driver Md. Joynal Uddin Laskar kept the said vehicle on the compound of Md. Basir Uddin Mazumdar of Arcuttipur trijunction, silchar but it has been stolen on that night. Accordingly the complaint lodged FIR before O/C Silchar Police Station vide Silchar P/S case No. 850/06 U/S 379 IPC. At the same time the matter was informed to the O.P Insurance Company. Accordingly, the O.P Insurance Company appointed Sri. Ratan Kurmi (Proforma O.P) as surveyor. During survey the complaint furnished required papers and document to the Surveyor. Thereafter the Surveyor submitted survey report to the O.P Insurance Company. On waiting a reasonable time the complainant approach the O.P to settle the claim but he was asked to submit FIR of Police Case. Accordingly, he submitted FIR but the O.P again asked to submit NCRB report. The complainant could not collect the NCRB report immediately, for which the O.P closed the claim case. Subsequently, the complaint collected NCRB report and submitted to O.P with a prayer to re-open the claim case but the O.P Insurance Company repudiate the claim by informing on 18/04/2013. Hence, the instant complaint submitted with prayer for award of sum assured amount of the Rs.4,70184 and compensation of Rs.50,000 for disservice.
- The O.P Insurance Co. submitted W/S. In the W/S did not deny the fact of theft of the Vehicle. The fact of coverage of the vehicle under Insurance with O.P is also admitted. But the plea of the O.P Insurance Company is that the vehicle was not kept in proper place with care and the claim case closed due to non-furnishing NRCB report in time. The O.P insurance Company also raised objection that the case is barred by limitation.
- The O.P No.2 is the surveyor. He did not contest the case. However during hearing the complainant deposed as PW- 1 and Exhibition 10 (ten) documents including FR and NCRB. He also exhibited the claim registration Letter vide Ext. 10. The O.P Insurance Company also examined Sri. Fakkar Uddin Ahmed, the Assistant Manager of New India Assurance Company as DW and Exhibit 10 documents including copies of some corresponding letter on surveyor Report.
- Perused evidence on record including written argument of both sides counsels.
- As per surveyors report vide Ext. 1 it is reported that the fact of theft of the above vehicle is genuine. Moreover, the complainant produced copy of FR in connection with Silchar P/S Case No. 850/06, U/S 379 IPC and NCRB report. The above document makes it clear that the stolen vehicle of the complainant has not been recovered yet. Thus, as per term and condition of the Insurance Policy vide Ext. 3 if the vehicle is stolen and ultimately not recovered the Insurance Company is liable to pay sum assure money. In the instant case as per Ext. 3 sum assured is Rs.4,70,184. But the plea of the Insurance Company is manifold for repudiation of claim. The Insurance Company raised objection also on limitation. But record revealed that the letter of repudiation of the claim is issued by the O.P Insurance Company on 18/04/2013 Vide Ext. 10, so cause of action began for limitation from the above date for 2 years. The complainant lodged on 26/06/2014 i.e within the above period of limitation. So in our considered view the case is not barred by limitation.
- Now the main objection of the O.P insurance company is that the vehicle has stolen due carelessness of the complainant.
7. In that aspect the O.P Insurance company took plea that as below.
(E) It appears from the conduct of the complainant that he understood that the theft of motor vehicle was due to his own negligence in taking of proper care of the same. It is also evidently clear that on the night of the alleged theft of the motor vehicle it was in custody of the Basir Udin Mazumder of Arcuttipur tri-junction under Silchar P.S but it is not known as to why the complainant left the motor vehicle in custody of some unknown and a third person not any way connected with the complainant. (Ref. Copy of affidavit sworn by the complainant dated 07/02/2006). Therefore it may be inferred that the complainant was found not very serious about observation of the formalities.
(F) That the existence of some unholy and nexus could not be ruled out between the complainant and his driver and other person in mechanizing the fabricated story of theft of the vehicle.
8. We have gone through the record very meticulously, but do not find any express restrictive provision that the vehicle cannot be kept under custody of driver or any third person. More over in this case though the O.P Insurance company took plea of existence of some unholy nexus between complainant driver and third person but failed to established the fact against the complainant by adducing any reliable evidence. On the other hand the O.P exhibited surveyor report vide Ext. C. As per their document the fact of theft of the vehicle is genuine and the surveyor did not report any fact regarding an unholy nexus found between the complainant, driver and third person in respect of got up story of theft. The police investigation report is also in favour of the Complainant that the vehicle has been stolen and there is no clue that the complainant has involved in stealing of the vehicle.
9. Hence, we do not convince with the plea taken by the O.P Insurance Company as stated above. So the complainant is entitled award of sum assured of the vehicle of Rs.4,70,184 subject to depreciation of rubber items etc.
10. However in the case the O.P Insurance Company repudiate the claimant on the plea that the Claimant could not furnish NCRB Report in time for which claim case is closed. But from the evidence on record we do not find any material to conclude that Complainant was in negligent to collect the NCRB Report as called for. He submitted the said report vide Ext.7 immediately after collection but at the same time we failed to understand as where the O.P Insurance Company is restricted to collect the FR and NCRB report by its own endeavor without asking the complainant. If the Insurance Company would take necessary steps to collect FR and NCRB report without asking the complainant the matter might be more expeditious and in that way before closing the claim case the O.P Insurance company could give proper reasoning for closing the claim case. The ext. 10 reflected the callous intention of the O.P Insurance Company to repudiate the claim.
11. Hence, in our considered view when the complainant submitted NCRB report and requested to re-open the claim case the O.P Insurance Company ought to re-open the claimant case for consideration but did not do so. So the said activities of the O.P Insurance Company is amounting to deficiency of service. For which the complainant suffers not only monetary loss but also mental agony.
12. Hence, we are of opinion that Rs.50,000 (Rupees Fifty thousand) only to be paid and proper amount of compensation to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly we are awarding Rs. 50,000/- as compensation in addition of Rs.1000 (Rupees One thousand) as cost of the proceeding.
13. Therefore, the O.P Insurance company is directed to pay sum assured of Rs.4,70,145/- subjected to deduction of depreciation as per rule and compensation of Rs.50,000/- as well as cost of Rs.1000/- within 45 days from today. In default the said awarded amount will fetch interest at the rate of 10% per annum till realization of the full amount
14. With the above order, this case is disposed of on contest. Supply free certified copy of 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 17th day of May, 2017.
