STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

Appeal No. 160 of 2018

Branch Manager, the New India assurance Company Ltd. Regional Office, 6^th & 7^th Floor, B.S.F.C Building, Frazer Road, Patna- 800001

                                                                                                                                                         … Opposite Party/ Appellant

Versus

Jitendra Kumar, S/o- Shiv Kumar Prasad, R/o- Mohalla- Katra Chowk, Gola Road, PO & PS- Sheikhpura, District- Sheikhpura

                                                                                                                                                      …. Complainant/Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Rajesh Chandra Narayan

Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. Rajen Sahay

Before,

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President

Md. Shamim Akhtar, Member

Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member

Dated 14.08.2023

As per Md. Shamim Akhtar, Member.

O r d e r

1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 29.11.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sheikhpura in complaint case no. 03 of 2013 by which the appellant has been directed to pay the complainant/respondent a sum of Rs. 11,60,000/- within 60 days with 6% interest from the date of filing of the case otherwise with 9% interest.
2. The case of the complainant /respondent in brief is that the complainant purchased a truck bearing registration no. BR-01GA-0780 with the financial assistance of Tata Motors Finance Ltd. The said truck was insured with the appellant Co. for a sum of Rs. 11,60,000/- w.e.f 29.01.2010 to 28.01.2011 and during the policy period the said truck was stolen in the night of 12.02.2010 from NH 28 for which Bachwara P.S case no. 19 of 2010 was registered and after investigation the police submitted final report as case true but no clue. A claim was lodged before the appellant/insurance company and the company assured for payment of Rs. 10,79,432/- but vide letter dated 20.03.2012 it was informed that Rs. 8,08,449/- only is payable. A legal notice was also sent but the amount has not been paid.
3. Further case is that the appellant/insurance company appeared in the complaint and filed its written statement stating therein that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has not impleaded the financer as a party in the case and the complainant did not take reasonable care to safeguard, the insured vehicle and also that there was violation of policy of terms and conditions as intimation was given to the insurance company, after a delay of 31 days. After hearing both the sides the Ld. District Consumer Forum, Sheikhpura passed the impugned order.
4. The main grounds of appeal of the appellant is that the complainant/respondent did not provide papers demanded by the appellant vide letter dated 20.03.2012 and the complainant/respondent did not submit any paper in order to establish that intimation regarding the theft was given within the stipulated period and thus the Ld. District Forum has allowed the complaint case without any basis and prayer is made to set aside the impugned order.
5. On the other hand there is prayer that impugned order is good and does not required any interference.
6. We have heard both the sides. Also gone through the records including the impugned order.
7. The main grievance of the appellant/insurance company is that (1). The financer has not been party in the complaint and (2). The appellant was not informed regarding the theft within the stipulated period rather informed after 31 days of the theft.
8. It is admitted fact that the vehicle was insured with the appellant and theft was committed within the insurance period. The complainant /respondent has not filed any paper in order to show that he informed the insurance company within the stipulated period i.e immediately after the theft.
9. We on records find a Xerox copy of the letter dated 09.01.2016 of the Tata Motors Ltd. which shows that hypothecation agreement has been cancelled by the financer. Thus from the careful consideration of the materials available on the records, we find that claim of the complainant/respondent has been allowed on total loss (theft) standard basis for Rs. 11,60,000/- however it is an admitted fact that although Truck was stolen on 27.10.2008 but FIR was lodged on 02.11.2008 and intimation was given to insurance company on 07.11.2008 as such insurance company was deprived its valuable right for taking action and making effort to trace the stolen vehicle. Police after investigation has found case of theft to be true and appellant insurance Co. itself had decided to settle the claim on non-standard basis for Rs. 8,08,8449/-
10. In said view of the matter the order impugned in modified to the extent that claim is directed to be settled on non-standard basis (75%) and insurance company is directed to pay the insured amount of Rs. 8,08,449/- to the claimant within 60 days with interest @6% p.a from the date of filing of complaint case till its payment. With aforesaid modification, the Appeal is disposed of.      

(Md. Shamim Akhtar)                                     (Ram Prawesh Das)                                                      (Sanjay Kumar,J)

             Member                                                            Member                                                                      President

Md. Fariduzzama