Orissa

Cuttak

CC/51/2019

Debjyoti Dutta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Divisional Manager,New India Asurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R K Pattanaik

12 Dec 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C. No.51/2019

 

Debjyoti Dutta,

S/o: Sri Ashok Kumar Dutta,

Resident of At:Deulasahi,

P.O:Tulasipur,P.S:Bidanasi,

Town/Dist:Cuttack-753008.

                                                                                          ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

 

New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

Represented by its Divisional Manager,

Cuttack D.O-1,At:Badambadi(Kathajodi Road),

                         P.S:Madhupatna,Town/Dist:Cuttack.                             ...Opp. Party.

 

 

   Present:      Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

          Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

  Date of filing:    13.05.2019

  Date of Order:  12.12.2023

 

  For the complainant:            Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

     For the O.Ps                :          Mr. R.M.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

 

   Sri Debasish Nayak,President.      

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he is a contractor and used to perform job work which is the only source of his income and he maintains his livelihood therefrom.  He had purchased a DIGITRACK- HDD machine costing around Rs.24,00,000/- for his work of contract.  He had insured the said machine vide policy no.55030044176500000001 by paying the premium price of Rs.69,992/-.   The policy was effective from 11.5.2017 to 10.5.2018.  On 15.7.2017, the major part of the said machine was stolen by some unknown culprits.  The matter was reported at the police station on 22.9.2017.  The complainant had also apprised the O.P about such theft of the part of his machine and had applied for the insurance claim.   The price of the stolen part of the said machine is about Rs.11,80,000/- but surprisingly on 25.3.2019 the O.P had repudiated such insurance claim of the complainant as “No claim”.  Having no other way out, the complainant has approached this Commission claiming the cost of the stolen part of his machine to the tune of Rs.11,80,000/- alongwith compensation from the O.P to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- towards his mental agony and financial loss.  He has further claimed a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards his litigation expenses and has prayed for any other relief as deemed fit and proper.

          Together with his complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to establish his case.

2.       The O.P has contested this case and has filed his written version wherein he has admitted to have issued the insurance policy to the complainant vide policy no. 55030044176500000001 which was effective from 11.5.2017 till 10.5.2018.  The said policy had certain terms and conditions alongwith exceptions as regards to the loss or damage directly or indirectly caused by or arising out of or aggravated by the wilful act or wilful negligence of the insured or his representatives.  The O.P has mentioned in his written version that as per the copy of FIR, the complainant had disclosed about the theft on 22.9.2017 before the police station and had made the insurance claim through his letter dated 18.10.2017 whereas the alleged theft had taken place on 15.7.2017.  In order to explain such delay, the complainant has mentioned that his FIR when initially presented before the Markat Nagar police station on 15.7.2017 it was refused to be accepted for which ultimately on 22.9.2017 the filed his FIR at Bidanasi police station.  Thus, according to the O.P, the complainant had not shown any promptitude which is contrary to the provisions as laid down in the miscellaneous chapter that the complainant should have taken all practicable steps regarding such theft.  He should have immediately informed the O.P telegraphically or telephonically or in writing about the loss or damage.  It is for this, the O.P through his written version has submitted to reject the complaint petition as filed by the complainant.

          Together with the written version, the O.P has also filed several copies of documents in order to support his stand.

          The O.P has also filed the evidence affidavit through one Girija Shankar Satpathy who is working as Manager with TP Hub New India Assurance Company Ltd., but the contents of the evidence affidavit of the said Girija Shankar Satpathy when perused, it is noticed that the same is a reiterated precised form of the submissions as made in the written version.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

                      i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

          ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of  the O.P ?

         iii.         Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.ii.

              Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue in this case, is taken up  first for consideration here.

              Perused the contents of the complaint petition, written version, the written notes of submissions as filed from either sides as well as copies of the documents as available in the case record, it is noticed that infact the complainant had purchased one DIGITRACK-HDD machine which he had insured with the O.P by paying the premium.  It is also a fact that the said policy as regards to the purchased machine of the complainant was effective from 11.5.2017 to 10.5.2018.  It is alleged by the complainant that on 15.7.2017 some major part of the said purchased machine was stolen by some unknown culprits.  The complainant had tried to lodge his FIR at Markatnagar P.S on the same day but the Inspector Incharge had refused to accept such FIR on the round of jurisdiction.  Ultimately, the complainant could lodge his FIR at Bidanasi P.S on 22.9.2017.  His claim was brought to the notice of the O.P on 23.10.2017.  If at all there was theft of any part of the purchased machine of the complainant on 15.7.2017 and on the very date his FIR was refused to be accepted by the Inspector Incharge of Markatnagar P.S, it is not understood as to how could the complainant wait for such a prolonged period and had lodged his FIR at Bidanasi P.S on 22.9.2017.  This unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR is not at all explained by the complainant which tilts our eyebrows.  That apart, as per the policy availed by the complainant for his purchased DIGITRACK-HDD machine the terms and conditions therein categorically signify that the complainant should have promptly acted by informing the O.P insurer as well as the police but here in this case as noticed, the complainant could file his FIR only on 22.9.2017 even though he alleges that the major part of his purchased DIGITRACK-HDD machine was stolen on 15.7.2017.  He is silent about the delay in filing the FIR and the claim application as well here in this case.  He has also not filed the outcome of the investigation as to have made by the police of Bidanasi P.S after he had filed his FIR there on 22.9.2017.  Such facts and circumstances as noticed here in this case casts a cloud of doubt on the theft allegation of the complainant.  The complainant also has not been able to justify his plea of theft by adducing clinching evidence to that effect in order to apprise this Commission that infact by repudiating the claim and making it “No Claim”, the O.P was deficient in his service.  Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the O.P.

Issues no.i & iii.

             From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here in this case that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him. Hence, it is so ordered;

                                                          ORDER

              This case is dismissed on contest against the O.P and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

               Order pronounced in the open court on the 12^th day of December,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.  

 

                                                                                                 Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                        President

 

 

                                                                                           Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                    Member