Orissa

Cuttak

CC/151/2021

Malaya Kumar Chaini - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO -TOKYIO General Insurance co LTD - Opp.Party(s)

S B Das & associates

17 Sep 2022

ORDER

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

                                                                              C.C.No.151/2021

Malaya Kumar Chaini,

S/O:Nityananda Chaini,

At/PO:Pakhad,Via:Garadpur,

P.S:Patkura,Dist:Kendrapara-754153.                                                             ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.       M/s. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

At:Bajrakabati Road,PO:Mangalablag,Cuttack-753001.

 

2.       M/s. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

At/PO:Jayadev Vihar,Bhubaneswar,Dist:Khurda.

 

3.       The Theft Claim Officer,

M/s. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

5^th Floor,Saket Building,Near Apeejay School,

44 Park Street,Kolkata-700016,West Bengal.                                       ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    17.09.2021

Date of Order:  17.09.2022

 

For the complainant:         Mr. S.B.Das,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.              :        None.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.                                                        

            Case of the complainant in short is that he was the registered owner of one two wheeler vehicle vide model no.”Hero Glamour FI motorcycle” bearing Regd. No.OD-21A-5005.    The said motorcycle was duly insured by the O.Ps for the period from 21.12.18 to 20.12.19.  It is stated by the complainant that on 1.2.19 in the evening hour at Niali Bazar under the jurisdiction of Niali P.S in the district of Cuttack his motorcycle was stolen while it was parked in front of Ananta Sweet Stall.  Immediately on the next day he had lodged FIR at Niali P.S, which was registered vide Niali P.S.Case No.23/2019 dt.2.2.19.  The police investigated into the matter and submitted final report on 8.8.19. Immediately after lodging of the FIR on 2.2.19 the complainant had intimated the O.P No.1 about the theft of his vehicle, so also on 11.2.19 he went to the office of O.P no.1 and had handed over the documents of the vehicle alongwith copy of the FIR.  As the O.Ps did not register his claim he again went to the office of O.P No.1 after 15 days and thus his claim was registered vide claim no.HI/311/552216.  Thereafter, the complainant received letters dt.27.9.19 and 25.10.19 from O.P No.3 regarding appointment of one independent investigator and he was advised to send the documents, so that the claim can be processed.  The complainant on 6.11.19 went to the office of the O.P No.2 and had handed over the original documents as required by the O.Ps.  It is further case of the complainant that to the query of O.Ps as regards to the delayed intimation, on 22.7.20 he had clarified the same. The O.Ps after receiving all the required documents had not settled his claim.  Hence, he had sent one pleader’s notice to them but the O.Ps had not taken any action for settlement of his claim.  As the O.Ps did not settle his claim he had approached this Commission with a prayer seeking direction to the O.Ps for paying him a sum of  Rs.70,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of claim till realisation of the full amount.

            The complainant in order to prove his case has filed xerox copies of certain documents.

2.         The O.Ps have neither appeared nor filed their written version, for which, they were set exparte.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the documents filed in this connection, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following points in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

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

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

Point no.ii.

            The complainant’s motorcycle was stolen on 1.2.19 and he has filed FIR before the police on 2.2.19.  The police after investigation has given his final report on 8.8.19.  The unchallenged statement of complainant is that on the next date of incident, he had intimated to the O.Ps over phone about the theft of the vehicle.  On 11.2.19, he had gone to the office of O.P No.1 and had handed over the copy of the FIR and xerox copy of the vehicular documents.  Hence, there is no delay in intimating about the theft of vehicle to the O.Ps.The O.Ps had also intimated the complainant about the appointment of Independent Investigator vide their letter dt.27.9.19 and had asked him to submit some documents.  The complainant went to the office of O.P No.2 on 6.11.19 and had submitted the required documents thereby obtaining receipt to that effect.  The allegation of the delay about lodging the claim before the O.Ps has been clarified by the complainant vide his letter dt.22.7.20.  As the O.Ps had not settled his genuine claim, he had sent advocate’s notices on 8.1.21 and on 16.8.21 for settlement of his claim but the O.Ps had not settled his genuine claim.  The complainant has cited order dt 13.09.2021 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal no.5705 of 2021(Special Leave Petition(C) no.34639 of 2015) in the case of Dharamender Vrs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others, wherein the delay of 78 days in lodging the claim before the insurance company has been condoned.  The O.Ps in their letter had sought for clarification for 54 days delay only.  In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court  and clarification made by the complainant, no such clarification is further required.  On the basis of the unchallenged statement of the complainant, who has filed all the required documents as sought for by the O.Ps,  the O.Ps by remaining silent without settling the genuine claim of the complainant  have undoubtedly committed deficiency in service.

Point no.i.

            When the claim of the complainant was not settled, who had insured his vehicle and during the persistence of the insurance policy, it was stolen, and by filing this case it is definitely maintainable.

Point no.iii.

            From the discussions as made above, the complainant is entitled to the I.D.V of his vehicle alongiwth the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                     ORDER

            The case is allowed exparte against the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  They are directed to settle the claim of the complainant on the basis of the I.D.V of his stolen vehicle alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this case.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony and harassment to the complainant together with a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the litigation cost. This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the   17^th day of   September,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                                                              Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                           Member

                                                                                                                               

                                                 Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President