This is a complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer for an order directing the O.P. No. 1. To pay cost of loss of vehicle amounting to 5,69,848/-with interest and for compensation of Rs 25,0000/- for 

Litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- and any other reliefs to the complainant

The complaint case in short is that the complainants are the resident of Goalpokur Dist. U/D , O.P No. 1 is the Insurance Company and O.P. No. 2 is the financer  at Siliguri. The husband of the complainant No. 1 was the Registered owner of the vehicle being number WB-74x/6811(Bolero) who purchased the insurance policy in respect of the vehicle being policy No. 79109609, valid from 08.02.2012 to 07.02.2013. Said husband purchased the vehicle through the OP No.2/ financer. Unfortunately, he died on 25.03.2012 .The complainants being wife and son are his legal heirs.  The ownership of the vehicle has not been transferred in the name of legal heirs.

The said vehicle, kept under lock and key in the courtyard surrounded by high wall and locked gate , was stolen during the insurance period by miscreants on 01.12.2012.The theft was informed to the Goalpukur P.S. And also to the ARTO Siliguri afterwards . OP No. 1 was also informed. Thereafter complainants submitted claim along with all necessary documents to the office of the OPs. OP No. 1 did not pay the claim amount . Then on 25.05.13 OP No. 1 issued letter requesting complainants to submit necessary papers in support of claims . Then OP No. 1  on 16.01.14 issued further letter repudiating the claim inspite of insurance coverage valid till dt. Of incident. So, finding no other alternative the complainants filed this complaint before this Forum to get proper relief.

On the other hand, the O.P. No.1 & 2 by filing their separate W.V. have contested this case denying all the material allegations against them made by the complainants, rather contended that this case is not maintainable in its present form and law. Specific case of OP No. 1 is that the complainants violated policy conditions as they did not apply to have the policy transferred to the names of legal heirs after 3 months from the date of death of insured as the policy will remain valid up to 3 months.

OP No. 2 in the written version stated that husband of complainant No. 1 took loan agreement valued of Rs 490000/- to be repaid by 33 periodical installments starting from 16.02.12 and ending 15.10.14 . When during loan period said husband died and the vehicle in question was stolen away from the custody of the complainant she submitted claim with Op No. 1 . And the loan amount was already paid as per agreement thereafter the loan was settled and loan A/C was closed accordingly NOC dt. 01.03.13 was issued and was received by complainant on 18.03.13. Op No. 2 did not comment as the issues are between the Op No. 1 & complainant. That Op No. 2 has no negligence and deficiency in service.

       To establish their case the complainant and the O.P. No.1 have relied upon separate affidavit-in-chief sworn in by them and relied upon some documents..  They also filed questionnaires  and answers to those questionnaires. Recorded as P.W.1 and O.P.W.1. respectively. OPW 2 also filed documents and written arguments .

                                                   DECISIONS WITH REASONS

Giving due consideration to the contents of the complaint petition, documentary evidence on record, hearing, arguments advanced by the lawyers of both sides, the Ld Forum has come to the findings as follows: -

It is admitted fact that the Sunil Mandal since deceased purchased the said vehicle on 29.02.12 through OP No. 2 , the financer and that he purchased the policy No. 79109609 valid from 08.02.12 to 07.02.13 . The said vehicle was stolen away from the courtyard of complainant on 01.12.12 though it was kept in locked position inside the premises. Complainant has been able to prove the same by the FIR lodged over the incident at Goal pukur P.S. case No. 412/*12 dt. 02.12.12. The charge sheet FIR , certified copies,  were filed for perusal of the Forum. The matter was also informed to ARTO on 01.02.13 in writing . Complainant also informed OP No. 1 & 2 which he also stated swearing affidavit and also in his evidence as PW1. He made claim application before the OP Insurance Co. and OP No. 1 also asked for filing requisite documents to settle the claim. The letter of OPW 1 dt. 24.05.13 filed by the complainant goes to show that along with other documents, NOC of OPW 2 was also sought for. Complainant to get the claim amount he repaid the loan to OP No. 2 in advance and NOC was issued on 01.03.13. ; while he was supposed to repay the loan from 16.02.12 to 15.10.14 by 33 installments . Op No. 1 also admitted this  fact in his evidence . The NOC is also filed herewith for perusal. From the policy paper filed it is also clear that the policy was in effect at the time of theft .As the  policy was in force at the time of incident therefore the Insurance Co.  can not repudiate the claim that the policy was in the name of said Sunil Mondal since deceased. It is an indisputable fact that complainants as legal heirs made the payment of lo an on behalf of the deceased to get NOC. Therefore Ops were apprised of the death of Sri Sunil Mondal on 25.03.2012. the death certificate is also filed.  This Forum cannot disbelief the complainants ,that they also informed Op No. 1& 2 about the death. Insurance Co. cannot repudiate the claim on the ground that policy was purchased in the name of sunil Mondal  and therefore his legal hears was not entitled to any claim.

The insurance Co. is bound to compensate the legal representative of deceased original owner of the vehicle in view of the findings of the Hon’ble Apex Court as reported in (2009)1SCC page 558. The Hon’ble National Commission also viewed that the insurance Co. is bound to compensate legal representative of deceased original owner of the vehicle as reported in 2015(2)CPR474(N.C). Instead OP No. 1 is causing harassment and mental agony by repudiating the claim .So, we decided that the complainant has able to prove his case and he is entitled to get the cost of loss of the vehicle in question  amounting to Rs.5,69848/- as per his claim from the O.P. No. 1 and the O.P. No.1 cannot  avoid the liability in this case. And so, we decided the case with the following order,

Fees paid are correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

That the consumer complaint being No. CC - 61/14 be and the same is allowed on contest without cost against OP No. 1 and dismissed against OP No. 2.

The complainant do get an order of Rs. 5,69,848/- as cost of loss of the vehicle in question against OP No. 1 and   also a compensation of Rs.5,000/- together with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- against the O.P. No. 1 , which is in total of Rs.5,76,848/- (Rupees Five Lac  Seventy-six Thousand eight hundred fourty- eight ) only and be paid within one month from the date of passing of this order; failing which the awarded amount will carry interest @ 9% p.a. till full realization; otherwise the complainant will be at liberty to realize his claim in accordance with law.

Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.