BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

CACHAR :: SILCHAR

Con. Case No. 35 of 2011

            Salim Uddin Laskar, …………………………………………………       Complainant.         

                                                                        -Vrs.-

1          The Divisional Manager,

            New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

            Silchar Division, Club Road, Silchar-1.                                                          Opp. Party

2.         Tata Motors Ltd., 1^st Floor, Cybertech House,

            Plot No.B-63/65, Road No. 21/34,U.B. Sawant Marg,

            Wangle Estate, Thane West-400604,

            Mumbai, Maharastha.                                                                                  Proforma O.P.

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 :-                 Jashim Uddin Laskar , Advocate for the complainant.

Sri S.S. Dutta,  Advocate for the O.P. No.1.

                           Date of Evidence………………………..     29-05-2012, 31-07-2012

                         Date of written argument………………         15-06-2016

                         Date of judgment……………………….           05-07-2017

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

                 Sri Bishnu Dednath,

1. The complainant Salim Uddin Laskar brought this case against New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Silchar Division for award under Consumer Protection Act 1986 because on 02-07-2006 his insured Tata Indica Vehicle bearing Regd. No. ML-04-A/0372 has been stolen from the front of Hotel Nelli, Dimapur, Nagaland. Accordingly he added a fact that the said vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Silchar vide Insurance Policy No. 530600/31/06/01/00001014. The sum insured of the vehicle was Rs.3,84,627 and period of coverage of risk was from 30-05-2006 to 29/05/2007. Accordingly, FIR lodged and Dimapur P.S. Case No.106/06 registered (corresponding to GR Case No. 323/06). The police investigated the case but could not recovered the vehicle. However, the JM first class filed the case with opinion that if the vehicle recovered the case may be restored. However, the complainant submitted claim before the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Silchar but repudiated the claim. Hence this case brought for reliefs.

2. The New India Assurance co. (O.P No.1) submitted W/S. In the W/S stated inter alia that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose and story of theft of the vehicle is concocted. However, O.P No.2 the Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai is proforma O.P. The said O.P did not contest the case.

3. During hearing the complaint deposed on oath and exhibited relevant documents. The O.P No.1 also examined Sri Umapada Das, the Assistant Manager of the O.P and exhibited 4 (four) number of documents including Investigation Report and Charge Sheet. After closing evidence, the O.P No.1 submitted written argument but the complainant did neither submit written argument in spite of allowing reasonable time nor argued the case orally.

4. We have gone through the material on record and written argument. The Ext. 8 and Ext. C clearly indicated that the police case has been registered and investigated regarding stealing of the above mentioned vehicle. The complainant also deposed in that aspect that his driver was send to Nagaland with the vehicle and from Dimapur the vehicle was stolen. The contesting O.P took plea that the fact of stealing of the vehicle is concocted but not convincing material produced to draw a presumption that vehicle was not stolen. However, the order of Judicial Magistrate vide Ext. C indicated that the vehicle has not been recovered yet. So, there is a prima facie case that the vehicle has been stolen.

5. However, the O.P No.1 took another plea that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose during the relevant time of alleged stealing for which no relief is entitled as per Consumer Protection Act.

6. In the aspect, the complainant deposed that he send his paid driver with the vehicle for his personal work but the O.P No.1 took plea that the vehicle was carrying passenger. But no convincing material produced by the O.P No.1 to establish the above plea. Hence, in our considered view the vehicle was stolen during the use for personal purpose of the complainant and same is not yet recover. Thus he is entitled to get the insured value of the said vehicle from the O.P No.1 as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy but the O.P No.1 repudiated the claim without any justification. Hence, we find deficiency of service of the O.P.

7. Therefore, O.P No.1 is asked to make payment of insured value of the vehicle after depreciation as per rule and also to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand) only for disservice and a cost of the proceeding of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand) only . In default of payment of the aforesaid awarded amount  within 45 days from today interest at the 10 percent P.A. will fetch to the awarded amount till realization of the full.

8. 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 5^th day of July, 2017.