BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

CACHAR :: SILCHAR

Con. Case No. 18 of 2014

            Sri Mithun Paul, ……………..………………………………………        Complainant.

                                                                        -V/S-

1.         United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

            Represented by Divisional Manager,

            United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shyamaprasad Road,

            Shillongpatty, Silchar-1, Cachar, Assam. ………………………….         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 :-                Jhuma Paul, Advocate for the Complainant.

Deepak Kumar Deb, Advocate for the O.P.

                         Date of Evidence………………………..    04-12-2014

                         Date of written argument………………    18-07-2017

                         Date of oral argument…………………..    28-08-2017

                         Date of judgment………………………..    12-09-2017

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

                              Sri Bishnu Debnath,

1. This case is brought by Sri Mithun Paul against the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Silchar Division U/S 12 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because the Insurance Company repudiated the claim although his insured bike has been stolen away during the period of coverage of risk in view of insurance policy No. 1305003111 P154181282.

    

2. Accordingly, on receiving the notice of this District Forum, the Insurance Co. in its W/S stated inter-alia that the period of risk coverage was w.e.f. 17-10-2009 to 16-10-2010 mid night but as per information and police report the bike vide registration No. AS-11F/2602 was stolen away on 17-10-2012 i.e. after expirer of the period of insurance, for which the claim has been repudiated.

    

3. During hearing the complainant adduced oral evidence and exhibited Insurance Policy, the ezahar, information to the Insurance Company, the F.R. and other relevant papers. The O.P- Insurance Co. also examined Sri Dilip Kumar Dey the Assistant Manager of the Insurance Co. and exhibited the Insurance Policy, ezahar, FR and other relevant papers. After closing evidence, the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant submitted written argument but the Ld. Advocate of the O.P did not submit written argument rather argued the case orally.

    

4. Perused the evidence on record, relevant exhibited document and written argument.

    

5. In this case the crux point is whether the Motor Cycle was stolen on 16-10-2012 or on 17-10-2012. The Complainant deposed that his Motor Cycle was kept in the house of his father-in-law and on 16-10-2012 at 3-00 A.M it was stolen away. To support the said fact he exhibited ezahar vide Ext.3 the written information dated 17-10-2012 to the Insurance Co. vide Ext.2 and FR vide Ext.4. On careful study of all those documents it is revealed that the Motor Cycle was kept in the house of the Father-in-law of the Complainant at night on 15-10-2012, but it was detected at late might i.e. at about 3.00 A.M on 16-10-12 that the Motor Cycle was stolen away from the house by breaking the front gate lock of the house. But the O.P by adducing evidence of D.W and FR vide Ext.B tried to establish the fact that as per police report the Motor Cycle was stolen away on 17-10-2012.

6. We have gone through the Ext.4 F.R and Ext.B F.R meticulously and found that both the F.R are of same case.Hand writings are of the same person but date mention in the brief history are different. In the F.R vide Ext.B, the date of lodging ezahar was mentioned as on 18-11-2012 and date of stealing the Motor Cycle was mentioned as on 17-10-2012 but in the Ext.4 F.R date of lodging ezahar was mentioned as on 17-10-2012 and date of stealing the Motor Cycle was mentioned as on 16-10-2012. Now to unearth the truth, we have gone through the ezahar vide Ext.B attached with F.R and ezahar vide.3. Both the Ext. 3 and ezahar is Ext.B are same. In the ezahar clearly mentioned that on 15-10-2012 the complainant kept the Motor Cycle on the verandah of house of his Father-in-law but at late night i.e. about 3:00A.M on 16-10-2012 inform him that the Motor Cycle has been stolen away. The said Ext. 3 ezahar or Ext.B ezahar are not challenged by the O.P-Insurance Co. The written information regarding stealing of Motor Cycle given to the Insurance Co. vide Ext.2 is also remain un-rebuttable in the evidence on record. The investigation Officer reproduced the said fact with date in the F.R but the certified copy of F.R vide Ext.B submitted by the Insurance Co. is appeared to be false because in that document it is written that ezahar was lodged on 18-11-2012 whereas record revealed that O/C Rangirkhari Police Out Post made entry on the ezahar on 17-10-2012 and O/C Silchar P/S registered the Silchar P/S case No. 2058/12 U/S 380 IPC on 18/10/2012. If that is the real fact than how the ezahar could be lodged after one month from the date of registration of the P/S case! That is why, we do not believe the Ext.B F.R. Rather Ext.4 F.R is taken into consideration as more reliable document. As such it is concluded that with the evidence on record it is established that the Motor Cycle was stolen away on 16/10/2012 at about 3:00 A.M or any earlier occasion. Thus, the said period is within the coverage of risk period because the risk period was upto midnight on 16/10/2012.

7. Therefore, the repudiation of claim of the Complainant is not justified. So,the above repudiation is amounting to deficiency of  service  of the Insurance Company. Thus, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the total IDV of Rs.68,115 /- subject to deduction of depreciation as per law and procedure and also liable to pay Compensation for deficiency of service of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen thousand) only and cost of proceeding of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only.

8.  The above total awarded amount to be paid within 45 days from today. In default, interest to be charged @ 10% per annum on the awarded amount till realization of the full.

9. With the above the 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 12^th day of September, 2017.