Ld. Advocate(s)

                             For Complainant: Subhasish Ray                                                         

                             For OP/OPs : Raj Kumar Mandal

          Date of filing of the case         :29.11.2019

          Date of Disposal  of the case  :29.07.2024

Final Order / Judgment dtd.29.07.2024

The basic fact of the case of the complainant is that the complainant Nanigopal Biswas  purchased  one  Maruti Suzuki RITZ VDI

(2)

CC/376/2019

BS IV model Car for personal use which was registered  at Nadia RTA bearing no. WB52X/4062. The  vehicle was  insured with OP Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd  vide policy no. MOP 4508514 for the period 29.08.2017 to 28.08.2018. The complainant took  finance from OP No.3 Mahindra and Mahindra  financial service  limited , Krishnagar Branch.  On 11.12.2017 when the complainant went  to Jharsuguda   Odisha  , at about 8 P.M the said  vehicle was  parked at Sabahal market place. The said vehicle  was broke down. So, the complainant left the vehicle  in locked condition. On the next  morning  when the complainant  came to that place he found that the vehicle was missing.  Despite, through  searching  the said vehicle could not be traced. So, he lodged FIR to local P.S vide Jharsuguda   Odisha  P. S case no. 10/18 dated 02.01.2018 u/s 379 IPC. Subsequently,  the complainant  informed  it to the OP No.1 insurance  company  and the RTA along with  the claim  from to the insurance  company on 20.03.2018. The OP No.1 company  repudiated the said claim. So, the present  case is filed. All the OPs are  liable for refusal  of the claim. The cause of action arose  on 20.03.2018 and on subsequent dates. In the said repudiation  letter dated 20.03.2018 it was stated  that due to non-compliance of condition 1 and 4 the claim was repudiated. So, the OPs have adopted  unfair trade practice  by repudiating  the claim. The complainant  therefore, prayed for an award  against OP No.1 for Rs.425111/- being the IDV of the vehicle, directing the OP No.3 to adjust the outstanding of Rs.381674/- from  OP No.1,  Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental pain and agony and Rs.30,000/- towards  litigation cost.

          As per order no.14 dated 24.08.2022 the case is  decided to be heard ex-parte  against  OP No.2&3.

          OP No.1 contested the case  by filing W/V wherein they denied the  major allegation.  The positive defence case of OP No.1 in brief  is that the  complainant  purchased  a commercial  vehicle of Maruti Suzuki RITZ VDI BS-IV with insurance  policy no. MOP 4508514 for the period  29.08.2017 to 28.08.2018 subject to various terms and conditions.  The complainant preferred  a claim vide no. PV00391759 dated 11.12.2017 for the loss arisen  against the  insured vehicle. After getting  the claim intimation  the OP No.1 engaged  M/S Intrepid  claims  to investigate  the matter.  The investigator  observed that  during investigation  insured did not  provide both original  keys  of IV. The insured  himself  kept one key  inside the vehicle  before he left  the spot.  The photo  of second  original key  provided by the  insured clearly  indicates  that it is new and unused  keys which was  kept in the insured native place.  It is clear  that the theft  incident  was true  but it occurred  due to the  gross negligence  of the insured.  So,

(3)

CC/376/2019

the insurer  is not liable  for such negligence of the insured. As per condition  4 of policy terms and conditions,  the insured shall take  all the reasonable  steps to safeguard private car  for loss  of damages . The claim was  repudiated  on the ground  that the insured  has not taken proper  care to safeguard  the vehicle.  There is no  deficiency in service . So, the OP No.1  claimed that the  case is liable to be  dismissed  with cost.

           Conflicting pleadings of the parties led the Commission to ascertain  the following points  for adjudication  for proper of this case.

Points for Determination

Point No.1.

Whether the  case is maintainable  in its present form and prayer.

Point No.2.

Whether the complainant  is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

Point No.3.

          To what other relief if any the complainant is entitled to get.

Decision with Reasons

Point No.1.

It is the admitted fact that the  complainant purchased  the vehicle namely Maruti Suzuki  RITZ VDI  bearing no. WB52X/4062 with insurance from the OP No.1 for the period 29.08.2017 to 28.08.2018. thus the relation between the  complainant and the OP No.1 is seller and consumer. As regards  insurance  service, the  relation  between the  parties is considered  as purchaser  and service provider .

The complainant  categorically  stated in the  complaint  that he purchased  the said car for his personal use. The complainant duly proved the registration certificate.  The OP No.1 could not  establish  that the said vehicle  is used for commercial  purpose. 

Both the parties reside  within the  territorial  jurisdiction of this Commission.

The relief claimed  also falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.

(4)

CC/376/2019

Accordingly,  having considered  all these aspects the Commission  comes to the finding that the case is not barred under any provisions  of law and it is maintainable  in its present form and prayer.

Accordingly, point no.1  is answered  in affirmative  and decided  in favour of the complainant.

Point No.2&3.

Both the points have  close nexus with each other and as such  these are taken up together  for brevity and convenience  of discussion.

It is the admitted fact that the complainant purchased  the Maruti Suzuk  RITZ vehicle along with  insurance from the OP No.1.  The said insurance  policy  was valid for the period 29.08.2017 to 28.08.2018.

It  is the specific  case of the complainant  which he pleaded  and adduced  evidence  that the said  vehicle  was stolen on 11.12.2017. The complainant  lodged  FIR over the said  incident vide Jharsuguda P.S case no. 10/18 dated 02.01.2018 u/s 379 IPC. Except  an evasive  denial  the OPs could not  discard  it.

It is the admitted case that the complainant  proved a claim  over the said  incident  of theft  on 11.12.2017. The OP No.1 admittedly  stated that on receipt of the  claim intimation the OP No.1 immediately  engaged  M/S intrepid  claims to  investigate  the claim. The investigator  observed  that one  original key of the  said vehicle was  inside  at the time of theft  and the insured  himself  kept  the key inside the vehicle  before he left it on the spot.  The photo of second original key clearly indicates  that it is new and unused  key which was  kept in the  house of insured.

 It is very  important  to consider  that the OP No.1 in his W/V categorically  stated that the investigator  observed that it is clear  that the theft  incident  was true  but the said  incident occurred  due to the gross negligence  of the insured.

 The OP No.1 repudiated  the claim  on the ground  that  due to  gross negligence  of the insured , insurer  is not liable .

The complainant  duly proved  the original documents to substantiate the  case:-

(5)

CC/376/2019

Anneuxure-1:- Is the certificate  of registration  of the theft  vehicle.

Annexure-2:- Is the  insurance  policy to the said vehicle  in the name of the complainant  Nanigopal Biswas .

Annexure-3:- Is the Tax token.

Annexure-4:- Is the  letter of Mahindra  finance  regarding  regular of loan  agreement .

Annexure-5:- Is the  copy of final report .

Annexure-6:- Is the  letter of repudiation  dated 20.03.2018.

After assessing the entire evidence  it is found that the OP NO.1 company submitted  that as per  investigation  report the theft  incident was  true  but it occurred  due to the  gross negligence  of the insured.

Thus  if any incident  of theft  is genuine  then the owner of the vehicle  has little  to do  in it. When a theft  is genuine  the complainant  had nothing  to do over it or in other words,  the complainant could not prevent  the said theft  since the said  theft was genuine it. In fact despite  due diligence  the complainant could not prevent  it since  the theft is genuine.

Ld. Defence Counsel  argued that the  incident  of theft should be  informed to the  insurer  without any  delay,  because  the insurer  would appoint  investigator . In the instant case there is  a delay of 20 days.

It is fact  that there is some  delay in informing the incident  but the  investigator  of the OP No.1 insurance  company  held that  the said theft is genuine and as such  the complainant  had not lodged  any false complaint. 

Ld Advocate for the complainant argued that  the said incident  occurred  outside  West Bengal  that is at Jharsuguda Odisha . So, it took some time  to process the criminal  case and other proceedings .

The complainant  filed the copy of final reports wherefrom it is  revealed  that the police  started  the case is on the basis of  the complaint of the complainant.  The final report  is submitted  in Orya language. The OPs could not discard  the said  document.

(6)

CC/376/2019

Ld. Advocate  for the complainant further argued that the OP No.1 has taken  defence plea  that the complainant  violated  condition no. 4  of the policy.

The said  policy is proved as annexure-2 being policy no. MOP4508514 for the period 28.09.2017 to 28.08.2018.  It is the specific  pleadings  of the complainant  in para 12  that in the policy certificate  there was no whisper  of condition no. 1and 4  as stated by  OP NO.1.

It is fact that in the said  insurance policy there is no  condition as condition no. 1and 4 as claimed by the  OP No.1. However,  in the backside  of the policy in regard to  theft it is written  that lodged an FIR . Regarding  the total  loss claimed:- As a convention the insurance  company’s liability is  more than 75% of vehicles  insured  declared value (IDV).

The argument  is reasonable  and accepted . After close scrutiny  of the said  insurance policy  it is found that the said policy  does not contain  clause 1 and clause 2 as claimed  by the OP No.1. On the contrary  regarding theft  provision  the complainant  fulfilled  the said condition by  lodging  FIR at the  nearest police station  that is Jharsuguda Police Station.

During cross examination in answer  to question no. one  although  the OP No.1 stated in cross examination  that he had  document to show  that the vehicle  was used for commercial  purpose    yet during trial  the OP No.1 could not prove  any document to establish  that he used the vehicle  for commercial purpose.

Although, the OP No.1 answered in cross examination  that during  the investigation  insured did not provide  both the original  keys  of the vehicle on the other hand,  the insured provided  another key which was  not connected  with the insured vehicle.

The said  statement is  contradictory  to the report  of the investigator  because the investigator  did not support the said  statement  rather as per para 5 of the W/V the insured himself  kept the key  inside the vehicle before left it on the spot . The second  original  key provided by the  insured was kept in the insured native place which is new  and unused  key.

Ld. Senior  Defence Counsel  in course of argument demanded  the two keys  from the complainant  and asked  him to  submit both the  keys  to the complainant. Accordingly,  the complainant  at the fag end  of  the  case  submitted  both the keys before the Commission

(7)

CC/376/2019

  Commission which are kept in the safe custody  of the Registrar.

Ld. Defence Counsel , however,  on the date of passing the judgment  submitted to give him  the said two keys  for referring  it to the  expert.

 This court after  considering  all aspects  could not  allow his prayer because  as per the C.P Act any  party may pray  to refer any object and sample of the subject matter of the case  to an expert  for obtaining expert report. It should be  done during the trial,  not on the date of the judgment. That apart  the complainant never  made out any defence  case that the  two keys  of the said vehicle are not genuine.  Secondly, the investigator  admitted  that the complainant had two keys  with him.  So, the OPs cannot make out a third case  on the date of the judgment and  as such  the petition of the OP No.1  was rejected.

Ld. Defence Counsel  argued that  the  OP No.1 might have  given another  key to  them. But as per  previous discussion  the said argument  is not acceptable .

The OP No.1 repudiated  the claim for  delay  in lodging  the FIR and giving intimation .

Ld. Advocate  for the complainant  referred to  a decision  in this regard which is reported  in 2019 (2) CPR 492 (NC) wherein it was held that the theft  of vehicle  left  carelessly  - the keys were  left inside the dash board- FIR lodged –insurance  company  repudiated  the claim on the ground of exclusion  clause-  OP claimed  that the complainant  did not take precautionary  measure to protect the vehicle . – The FIR was lodged after 20 days  of the incident  and insurance  company  was informed  after three days - The claim was  repudiated- It was held even if the FIR was with some delay  that is not laxity on the part of the insured  being no breach  of the policy condition. Secondly, spare key was kept in the dash board  of the vehicle .  Hence, it cannot be said his key  was left in open , so as to be accessible to the criminal. The claim cannot be repudiated  on the ground  of flimsy  ground.

The said  case law squarely  applies here  and as such it is relied on .

(8)

CC/376/2019

In the backdrop  of the aforesaid discussion  and observation  made hereinabove  the Commission  comes to the finding that the repudiation  of the claim  by the OP NO.1 tantamounts  to unfair trade practice  and deficiency in service.

Accordingly,  the complainant  successfully  proved the  case against  OPs  upto the hilt.

Point no. 2&3 are  accordingly answered in affirmative  against the  OPs .

In the result  complaint case succeeds  on contest  against Op No.1 and ex-part OP No.2&3 with cost.

Hence,

                              It is

Ordered

that the complaint case no.CC/376/2019 be and the same is allowed on contest against OP No.1 and ex-parte against OP No.2 &3 with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). The complainant do get an award for Rs.4,25,111/- (Rupees four lakh twenty five thousand one hundred elelven) with  a direction to the  OP No.3 to adjust the outstanding of Rs.3,81,674/- (Rupees three lakh eighty one thousand six hundred seventy four) , Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) towards  unfair trade practice  and deficiency in service and Rs. 10,000/- ( Rupees tent thousand)towards litigation cost.  OP No.1&2&3 are jointly and severally  liable  to  pay the award  money  to the complainant  for Rs.4,85,111/-( Rupees four lakh eighty five thousand one hundred eleven) within 30 days from the date of passing the final award failing

(9)

CC/376/2019

which the entire award money shall carry an interest @8% p.a from the date of passing the final order till the date of its realisation.

All Interim Applications  (I.A) stand disposed of  accordingly.

D.A to note in the trial register.

The case is accordingly disposed of.

Let a copy of this final order be supplied to both the parties at free of costs.           

Dictated & corrected by me

 ............................................

                PRESIDENT

(Shri   HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)        ................ ..........................................

                                                                                                                          PRESIDENT

                                                             (Shri   HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)

I  concur,

                                                                                                    ........................................                                                 

          MEMBER                                                                

(SHRI NIROD  BARAN   ROY  CHOWDHURY)