DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 12 OF 2014
Mrs. Sabita Rani Lenka,
W/O: Ramhari Lenka,
R/O: MQ/174,Durga Nagar, Brajrajnagar,
PS- Orient, Dist- Jharsuguda, Odisha………………….…………………………. Complainant.
Versus
L & T General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
At: A/103, Rajdhani Gas Campus,
First Floor, Miknik Mall, Nayapali,
Bhubaneswar- 751 012, Odisha……………....................................................... Opp. Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant Shri N.K.Mishra, Adv. & Associate.
For the Opp. Party Shri Anup Kumar Mishra, Advocate.
Date of Order: 06.12.2014
Present
1. Shri S.L. Behera, President.
2. Shri S.K. Ojha, Sr. Member.
3. Smt.A. Nanda, Member (W).
Shri S. L. Behera, President :- The brief facts of the case are that, complainant’s vehicle bearing Regn. NO. OR-23-D-4399 was insured with the O.P/ Insurance Company L & T General Insurance Company Ltd. vide policy No. 915105001049770000 which was valid from dtd. 30.06.2012 to 29.06.2013. The insured vehicle was a TATA make Truck manufacture in the year-2010 whose IDV is Rs.12,11,760/- only. On dtd. 07.02.2013 during night hour the vehicle was stolen from the parking area No.09 under Orient Police station by some unknown culprit, after due search when the same was could not be trace out which the matter was reported before the Orient Police station and accordingly the FIR was lodge vide Orient PS Case No. 12 dtd. 09.02.2013 corresponding to GR Case No. 173/ 2013, the matter was also reported to the insurance company and thereafter claim was lodged by the complainant. Further, as per the requirement of the O.P Insurance Company the required documents were also submitted by the husband of the complainant on dtd. 08.11.2013. After lodging of the claim and submission of all the documents to the O.P/ Insurance company and despite of several approach with request no action was taken by the O.P/ Insurance company and remain silent. Hence this complaint for allegation of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party who intentionally avoided to pay the claim and sought for direction to the O.P to pay the IDV value of the truck along with compensation and costs due to undue delay and causing mental agony and harassment.
The O.P appeared and filed his written version after being noticed and contested the case, admitting the factum of insurance of the vehicle but contended that on being intimated regarding the theft of the vehicle it was investigated by its investigator who reported that the ignition key of the truck was kept inside the truck by the driver of the truck at the material time of theft which shows negligence of the driver of the truck which also amounts to violation of the condition of the policy and due to which the claim of the complainant was ignored.
The evidence of the complainant herself , driver of the vehicle namely Shakti Sharma and other two independent person namely Ramhari Lenka and Ashit Kumar Samal are filed in form of affidavit on behalf of the complainant. Sri Shakti Sharma who was the driver of the vehicle on the date of theft of the vehicle has categorically stated that on dtd. 07.02.2013 night when the vehicle was parked in parking area of No.09 parking yard under the Orient police station, when he went for diner after locking of the door of the vehicle found missing of the truck on the next day morning he is immediately inform the complainant, husband of the complainant with other persons searched for the truck when it was not found, FIR was lodged before the police. The complainant as well as the witnesses Ramahari Lenka and Ashit kumar Samal both have supported the factum of theft of the vehicle on dtd. 07.02.2013 night. On perusal of the written version, it is not denied that a criminal case was registered at Orient Police Station relating to theft of the vehicle. It is also not disputed that the truck is in question was stolen by some unknown culprit during night hour on dtd. 07.02.2013. The O.P’s. stand is that their investigator’s investigation disclosed that neither the driver nor any person guard the vehicle during the parking time at night. According to the O.P ignition key of the truck was kept in the truck by the driver at the material time of the theft which shows the negligence of the driver and for this ground the complainant is not entitled for any claim and the O.P/ Insurance company prayed for dismissal of the case.
Heard from both the parties in length, gone through the case record and the materials available. Admitted facts are that the truck of the complainant was insured with insurance company and during the continuance of the validity period of the insurance policy the vehicle was stolen from the parking place, FIR was given to the police, the matter of theft was intimated to the insurance company, claim was lodge by the complainant. It is to be noted that as per the letter dtd. 16.06.2013 of the O.P, the documents are require to process the claim but at that time the complainant submit all documents except two keys of the vehicle. Further the O.P did not remind to produce the said keys of the vehicle to the complainant and the said keys were produced before this forum by the complainant , so it presume that at the material time of theft, one key of the vehicle was kept with the driver and the other key was kept by the complainant. All the formalities were observed by the complainant but her claim was not honored by the O.P on the plea of sewer negligence and that plea has not been in any manner proved by the O.P insurance company. It is not disputed that the IDV of the truck is Rs.12,11760/- only. The insured vehicle has been lost forever. And the same is not recovered till date to the complainant has lost her vehicle for all time it is to be noted that when any insured purchased insurance policy insuring one’s vehicle with the insurance company the main object of obtaining policy is to indemnify the loss sustained to the property in case of accident or theft as per the policy condition of the insurance policy. The evidence produced by the Insurance company to established it’s plea of violation of condition is not at all to accept its claim that any negligence has been made by the insured of her driver at the time of loss of the vehicle rather after evidence filed by the complainant, her husband, her driver and some outsider fully supported the claim of the complainant and it can be accepted that the insured has not committed any negligence for which the vehicle was subjected to theft.
As per the above discussion, basing on the material evidence on record, we are in considered opinion that the complainant is entitled to get the IDV of the insured vehicle of Rs.12,11,760/- only from the O.P /Insurance company. We also observed that the O.P/Insurance company has delay the matter for unjustified period depriving the complainant from getting her legitimate dues. We therefore allow the complaint of the complainant hence the order as follows:-
The O.P/Insurance company is hereby directed to pay to the complainant the IDV of the insured vehicle i.e. Rs.12,11,760/- ( Rupees Twelve lakh eleven thousand seven hundred and sixty) only along with @ 7% interest per annum from the date of claim till the date of payment ,within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which additional interest @ 5% per annum will be charged on the awarded amount till its realization.
Accordingly the case is disposed of.
Order pronounced in the open court today on this the 06th day of December 2014, copy of this order shall be communicated to the parties as per Rule.
I Agree. I Agree.
Sd/-A.Nanda, Member (W) Sd/-S. K. Ojha, Member Sd/-S.L.Behera, President
Dictated and corrected by me.
Sd/- S.L.Behera, President.
