IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/164/2017.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
18.09.17 12.10.17 04.09.19
Complainant: Akhil Bandhu Mondal
S/o Sotya Narayan Mondal
Vill-Simulia, PO-Barala
PS-Raghunathganj, Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742235
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
414 Veer savarkar Marg, Near siddihi Vinayak Temple,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025
2. Branch Manager, ICICI, Lumbard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
C/o Golden Auto Marg, Vill-Kankuria, PO-Ghorshala,
PS-Raghunathganj, Dist-Murshidabad, Pin-742122
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Prabir Kr. Banerjee.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : Sri. Nilabja Datta.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay, Member.
One Akhil Bandhu Mondal (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
As per the Complainant his motorcycle being registration No.WB94A/8945, engine No. JAO5ECF9B12054, chasis No. MBL JA05EMF9B11777 was stolen on 07.12.16 from the outside of Punjab National Bank at Talai, Raghunathganj by some unknown person for which an FIR No. 1140/2016 has been lodged with the Police Station Raghunathganj on 28.12.16 but after the said incident took place the Complainant search nearby all sides of the Bank and verbally informed the matter to Raghunathganj PS and to OP No.2 i.e. Insurance Company before hand. After receiving the intimation of the incident the OP Insurance Company sent a notice to the Complainant for provide some documents and the Complainant sent all the required documents as per their demand on 12.03.17 and the said O .P ( Insurance Company )after receiving the same, repudiated the claim with a remark ‘No Claim’. Finding no other alternative, the Complainant filed the instant case before this Forum for appropriate relief.
The OPs after service of the notice appeared before this Forum by filing written version, where in it is stated that the complaint is not maintainable because there is gross negligence on the part of the Complainant as he did not lodged the FIR in due time or not informed the same to the OP,( Insurance Company). And as such the claim was repudiated by this OP and there is no deficiency on the part of the O.P, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Now the question arises whether the Complainant is a consumer and he is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reason
The Complainant insured his vehicle with the OP Insurance Company, so as per terms of the Consumer Protection Act, the Complainant is a consumer.
On perusal of the documents and arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the respective parties, it is undisputed that the Complainant is the owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No.WB94A/8945, engine No. JAO5ECF9B12054, chasis No. MDL JA05eNF9B11777. It is also undisputed that the aforesaid vehicle was stolen away by some miscreants from the outside of the Panjab National Bank, Talai Branch on 07.12.16 and the Complainant lodged an FIR on 28.12.16 and immediately after getting the copy of the FIR, the Complainant gave written information to the OP, Insurance Company. The OP in the written version stated that at present, he is unable to admit whether the vehicle is insured with this OP at the relevant point of time. The OP also stated that the Complainant lodged FIR on 28.2.16 i.e. after twenty-one days from the date of incident and the matter had also not been communicated nor intimated to the office of the OP which is a gross violation of the policy norms and/or conditions due to that reason the claim of the Complainant was repudiated by this OP.
The complainant has relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omprakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 15611 of 2017 wherein it is held that it is the common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straightaway go to Insurance Company to claim compensation. At first he will make efforts to trace the vehicle.
We have gone through the judgement, in this case the petitioner has informed the O,P Insurance Company after 8 days of incident but information to the Police was given on the very next day but in the present case the insurer has intimated the Police and the Insurance Company after 21 days from the date of the theft of the vehicle and no reason has been shown before us for consideration regarding reason for delay for a long period of 21 days and also no intimation has been given to the Police Station regarding this theft of vehicle rather F.I.R has been lodged on 28 /12/2016 though the incident occurred on 7/12/2016. With due regard to the decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 15611 of 2017, we think that the said decision is not at all helpful for the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Parvesh Chancier Chadha ,civil Appeal No.6739 of 2010 (arising out of SLP (C) No.12741of 2010), decided on 17/08/ 2010 has observed that : “In terms of the policy issued by the Appellant , the Respondant was duty bound to inform it about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident. On account of delayed intimation , the Appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get an enquiry conducted into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same” . In another case the Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd . vs Soni Cherian ,II(1999) CPJ 13 (SC)=VI (1999) SLT 565=II (1999) ACC196(SC), held as follows: “ The insurance policy between the insurer and the insured represents a contract between the parties. Since the insurer undertakes to compensate the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the insured on account of risks covered by the insurance policy, the terms of the agreement have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of insurer. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. That being so, the insured has also to act strictly in accordance with the statutory limitations or terms of the policy expressly set out there in”. Considering the facts and circumstances and the documents filed before us and judgements passed by the Hon’ble Apex court, we find that Complainant has not given any satisfactory reason for the delay to inform the incident to the O.P and the O.P Insurance company could not perform the duty in this regard and became deprived of its legitimate right to conduct an enquiry regarding the alleged theft of vehicle and to make an endeavour to recover the same .So we are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove his case and we find no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P in repudiation of the claim of the complainant . Hence, the case is liable to be dismissed
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 18.09.17 and admitted on 12.10.17 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
Fees paid are correct.
In the result, the Consumer Case fails. Hence it is
ORDERED
that the Consumer Case No. CC/164/2017 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OPs without cost.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
Member
Member President.
