Orissa

Jajapur

CC/08/2013

Padmabati Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Magma Fincorp Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Siris Kumar Mohanty

10 Mar 2015

ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

 

                                                                     Present:  1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President.

                                                                                     2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                                     3. Miss Smita Ray,Lady Member.

 

Dated the 10th day of March,2015.

C.C.Case No.08 of 2013

 

Padmabati Sahoo, W/O.Mangaraj Sahoo

Vill. – Kundala P.O.Kaudikhole    

P.S.Badachana , Dist.- Jajpur                                                          ……………..Complainant .                                                                                              

                        (Versus)

1. Divisional Manager ,The National Insurance Co.Ltd,Division-15

    National Insurance, Building and Indra Exchange place, 1^st floor.

   Kalkata.    

2.  Divisional Manager ,National Insurance Co.Ltd, At .Mangalabag, Cuttack

      Dist. Cuttack. 

3.  Branch  Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd, At/P.O/ Jajpur Road

     Dist. jajpur.

                                                                                                        …………………………Opp.Parties.                             For the  complainant:                           Sri S.K. Mohanty,  Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties No.2 and 3:        Sri G.C.Panda, Miss B.R.Rout ,Advocates.

For the Opp.Party No.1             :        None.

                                                           

 

                                                                        Date of order :   10.03.2015            .

MISS  SMITA  RAY , LADY  MEMBER.

                        The petitioner has come with this complaint petition alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. since the O.Ps. have not settled the genuine Insurance Claim against the theft vehicle of the petitioner.

                        The facts as stated by the petitioner in the complaint petition  shortly is that the petitioner  has purchased a L.P.T. 2515/48 T.C Motor bearing Regd. No.0R-04-H-1218 by Hire Purchase Agreement with  Magma Fin corp Ltd. . Subsequently the above vehicle was insured  with O.P. No.1,2 and 3 (National Insurance Co .Ltd) vide policy No. 150100/31/09/6300031935 which was valid from the period  02.02.11 to 01.02.2012 having the insured value Rs.12,00,000/- . During subsistence of  policy the above vehicle was parked regularly in front of the petitioner’s house. On dt.29.06.11 morning the petitioner found that the above vehicle was removed  from the parking area. Thereafter the petitioner along with her family members did not  tress out the vehicle.  Lastly she lodged the F.I.R i.e on 02.07.11 before I.I.C Badachana  police station and subsequently inform to the Insurance company vide claim No. N/10/1001436 which was received by the Insurance company i.e on 06.07.11.

                        That thereafter the Insurance Company investigated the matter and the authority admitted that there is prima facie evidence regarding the  theft of the above vehicle. Similarly police has submitted charge sheet U/S 397 of I.P.C which will prove that the above vehicle was stolen away by unknown culprits. Thereafter as per instruction of the financer vide letter  dt.03.12.12 the petitioner surrender  all original documents for settlement of the Insurance Claim. Besides this there is no result of two legal notices which are  issued to the insurer for settlement of her genuine Insurance Claim. Accordingly finding no other way the petitioner filed the present dispute with the prayer to direct the O.Ps. to settle the genuine claim of the petitioner. Initially as per the complaint petition there were four nos. of O.Ps.. Accordingly vide order dt.23.12.14 ,O.P no.1 (Magma Shrachi Finance Ltd) has been deleted from the cause title of the complain petition as per amendment petition dt.19.11.14 filed by the petitioner.

                        After noticed the advocate for Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd appeared and filed their written statement denying the allegation of the complaint petition. In the written statement the O.P has taken the following the pleas:

                        Admittedly the O.Ps. are the insurer of the said vehicle of the petitioner as covered  under Commercial vehicle package policy, and  the policy was inforce  at the time of incident. That intimation about theft was given to the insurer through Magma Finance Ltd, only on dt.11.07.2011 with a request to depute investigator and on 15.07.2011 investigator was depute by the insurer . After receipt of the investigation report  it is ascertained that  the petitioner claimed that her vehicle was stolen on 28.06.10 night. But she did not lodged the F.I.R on the police station immediately on 29.06.2011 . But the F.I.R is  said to has been lodged  by one Mangaraj Sahoo on dt.02.07.11 at 9 A.M after 4 days.

                        Further the  petitioner has never intimated to the concerned RTA regarding theft of her above mentioned vehicle by unknown miscreants. But it is very strange that the petitioner had intimated the RTA for off road of the vehicle from dt.01.08.2011 till dt.31.07.12 . The certificate from the RTA is obtained and filed. In that certificate there is no indication of theft of the vehicle. The insured has submitted two number of keys without any number. The key numbers were not mentioned in the retail invoice dt.02.02.2008 of Samal Auto India Pvt. Ltd given by the petitioner.

The petitioner has not produced any paper or proof that the vehicle was in existence prior to 28.06.10. The driver was not extained by the I.O. and there is delay of 5 days of lodging  FIR from the alleged date of occurrence .  The vehicle was not seized by the police .

                        The existence of the truck on the alleged spot on 28.06.11 is not believable at all. The delay in lodging FIR is nothing but a creative action from the side of the petitioner. The delay in intimation of the  alleged theft violates the policy condition no.1 and 5. The  clarification was sought for from the petitioner by O.P no.2 on dt.16.07.12. But the petitioner has not submitted the satisfactory clarification on these points. So the O.P no.2 has repudiated the claim of the petitioner.

                        The vehicle of the petitioner could not be engaged for business. She might have shifted/ sold the vehicle in question prior to 28.06.2011 and thought  of a plan to claim before the insurance on false pretext of theft. Accordingly the petitioner lodged one FIR mentioning imaginary date of theft to 28.06.2011 . The O.P is not liable to the any compensation to the petitioner and not to indemnify the alleged loss. Actually no loss is  caused to the petitioner . There is no deficiency of service of O.P no.2 and 3 . The claim is not justified.

                        Under the above mentioned circumstances, the case is to be dismissed with cost as provided under law. Other O.Ps. have not appeared and did not choose to file written version, for which they have been set expartee.

                        In view of the above contradictory views by both the parties  we heard the arguments from both the sides on the date of hearing. We have also come across with the observation of the Hon’ble National Commission stated below which clearly go to establish that delay in lodging FIR in the police station and intimation to the Insurance Company (Specially in theft cases) violates the terms and condition of the policy for which the insured is no way liable to get the Insurance Claim.

1. 2012(2)CPR-12 (NC),Rajesh Kumar Vrs. New India Insurance Co.

                        “ Lodging F.I.R in case of theft should be immediate concern for any owner           of vehicle”.

2. 2012(3)CPR-280 (NC),Siraj Khan Vrs.Mahindra Finance.

                        “ Delay in lodging F.I.R and sending intimation about theft to insurer. Repudiation of claim on this ground would be justified”.

3. 2012(4)CPR-559 (NC) Rahul Tanwar Vrs. Oriental Insurance .

                        “ peril must be immediately reported to police  and Insurance company”.

4. 2013(1)CPR-328 (NC) Mallikarjus Vrs. Oriental Insurance Co.

                        “Complaint can be dismissed on account of delayed information  to Insurance       Company.

5. 2013 (1)CPR-574 (NC) Balbir Singh Vrs. New India.

                        “ Occurrence of theft must be immediately reported to police “.

6. 2013(2) CPR-99 (NC)-13 Suresh Kumar Vrs. National Insurance .

                        “ Peril must be reported Insurance company without any delay”.

7. 2013 (2) CPR-517 (NC), Lakhan Pal Vrs. United India Insurance Co.

8. F.A.No.321 of 2005 ,New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Vrs. Trilochan Jane(NC).

                        “ Insurance Company must be immediately informed about alleged theft “.

                        From the observation stated above we have gone through the record in details and after perusal of the records along with documents it is cristal clear that the petitioner has submitted the claim to the Insurance Company  on 06.07.11 and FIR  was registered on by  police station on 02.07.11 at the belated stage i.e after 4 days and Insurance company after 8 days.

                        In the above situation it was the duty of the petitioner to inform  the police  and Insurance company within 48 hours as per observation of Hon’ble  National Commission reported in 2013(2)CPR-99-Para-13(N.C) and F.A No.321/05 (NC)  but the petitioner has not done so for which he has violated  the terms and condition of the policy .

                        Owing to the above narrated circumstances, when the law is well settled on the above point  we are not inclined to hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and having no alternative way the interest of justice will be best served in case the dispute will be dismissed

                                                            O R D E R

                        In the result the dispute is dismissed against the O.Ps. having no cost.

 

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 10th day of March ,2015. under my hand and seal of the Forum.

 

               

                                                                                                                  (Miss Smita Ray)

                                                                                                                 Lady  Member.

(Shri Biraja Prasad Kar)                                                Typed to my dictation & corrected by me                                              

            President                                                                     

 

 

 (Shri Pitabas Mohanty)                                                                         (Miss Smita Ray)

         Member.                                                                                         Lady Member.