C.F. CASE No. : CC/11/25
COMPLAINANT : Sri Banamali Ghosh,
S/o Late Dharma Ghosh,
of Vill. Sarat Sarani,
P.O. Krishnagar,
P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs: 1) Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.
A-9/12(S) Kalyani, under P.S. Kalyani,
Dist. Nadia, PIN – 741235
2) Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Regional Office, Himalaya House,
38-B, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Kolkata – 700071
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 25th May, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is the owner of a motor cycle being No. WB/24N-3869 which he purchased from one Subhrodeep Mahato on 24.02.10 at a price of Rs. 54,000/-. Said Subhrodeep Mahato purchased the motor cycle on 18.06.08 and the motor cycle was insured by the OP No. 2 for the period from 24.06.09 to 23.06.10 and the insured amount was Rs. 54,000/-. It is his further contention that the said motor cycle was stolen on 06.04.10 from the premises of the SBI, Krishnagar Branch at 3.30 pm to 4.00 pm. The petitioner thereafter filed a written complaint before the Kotwali P.S. on receipt of which, the P.S. started a case being No. 240 of 2010 dtd. 06.04.10 under Section 379 I.P.C. On 20.04.10 this petitioner intimated the OP No. 1 regarding the theft of the motor cycle and starting of the police case also. Thereafter he submitted a claim application before the OP No. 1, but no reply has yet been received by him from the OP No. 1. He further submits that after investigation, the I.O. submitted final report before the CJM, Nadia on 19.01.11. As the OPs did not take any step, so on 02.02.11 he sent a lawyers notice to the OP No. 1 with a request to settle his claim, but to no effect. So having no other alternative he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
The OP United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has contested this case by filing a written version, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form. It is his submission that one Subhrodeep Mahato signed a proposal form for insurance of his vehicle being No. WB24N/382869 for the period from 24.06.09 to 23.06.10 which was accepted by the OP and a policy being No. 030401/31/09/01/00000900 and certificate was also issued in favour of the Subhrodeep Mahato. He also received a claim intimation form to the present petitioner Banamali Ghosh about the theft of the motor cycle on 06.04.10 from SBI premises at Krishnagar. On receipt of the said matter, the Insurance Co. directed him to send the related documents like F.I.R., Charge Sheet, Driving license, Tax Token, R.C Book and both the keys of the said lost vehicle, but the petitioner did not comply the said direction. On the other hand, on 02.02.11 the petitioner sent a letter through his advocate for settlement of the claim at an early date. On careful scrutiny of the claim petition it appears that the policy was issued in respect of vehicle No. WB24N/3869 in favour of the Subhrodeep Mahato for the period from 24.06.09 to 23.06.10. But from the F.I.R., it is available that the said motor cycle was stolen on 06.04.10 and on that date the petitioner had no insurable interest and he is not entitled to get any claim as per policy condition. Besides this in case of transfer of any vehicle the subsequent purchaser must transfer his name in the insurance policy within 14 days since the date of transfer. Rather this petitioner by suppressing the facts of theft filed a motor insurance proposal form for transfer of his policy in his name in place of Subhrodeep Mahato. So considering all the above noted facts and circumstances this OP repudiated the claim of the petitioner and intimated him this matter by sending a registered letter dtd. 14.02.11. So this complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of the complaint and the written version filed by the OPs along with the annexed documents filed by the parties and also after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for the parties it is available on record that the disputed motor cycle bearing No. WB-24N 3869 originally belonged to one Subhrodeep Mahato and the said motor cycle was insured with the OP for the period from 24.06.08 to 23.06.10. It is also available on record that the present complainant purchased the said motor cycle from said Subhrodeep Mahato on 24.02.10 at a sum of Rs. 54000/- as per recitals of the petition of complaint. It is the case of the complainant also that the above said motor cycle was stolen from his custody on 06.04.10 from the premises of SBI, Krishnagar Branch. Regarding this he lodged a complaint before the I.O., Kotwali P.S. on the selfsame date. On the basis of the written complaint, Kotwali P.S. case No. 240 of 2010 dtd. 06.06.10 under Section 379 I.P.C. was started and after investigation I.O. submitted a final report before the court of ACJM, Nadia. From ‘Annexure – 1’, it is available that the said motor cycle was subsequently, insured with the OP and the date of commencement of the insurance policy was 08.04.10 which was valid upto 23.06.10 and the name of the insured is Banamali Ghosh and the insured amount is Rs. 54,000/-. This insurance certificate was issued on 08.04.10. But it is the case of the complainant that the motor cycle was stolen from his custody on 06.04.10. It is also available from ‘Para–K’ of the petition of complaint that the complainant purchased the motor cycle on 24.02.10 at a price of Rs. 54,000/- from one Subhrodeep Mahato in whose name it was insured for the period from 24.06.08 to 23.06.10. It is agitated by the OP that within 14 days since the date of purchase, i.e., 24.02.10 the complainant did not apply before the OP to transfer his name in the insurance policy as per policy condition. Though the policy was insured in his name on 08.04.10 but prior to that it was stolen from his custody on 06.04.10. By suppressing this fact he prayed for insurance of the motor cycle and the OP without knowing the fact insured in his name. So this insurance policy is not a valid one at all. The complainant cannot claim any benefit on the basis of this insurance policy. In this connection ld. lawyer for the complainant has cited a ruling from 1 (2006) CPJ 441 where the Hon’ble State Commission at Chandigarh decided “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 15 – Insurance – Vehicle stolen – Claim repudiated – Second hand vehicle purchased – Policy not transferred to complainant – Insurer not liable to make payment.” The Hon’ble Commission further clarified it as “In fact, the respondent No. 1 (complainant) had not applied to the insurer within 14 days from the date of transfer of the vehicle in question in his favour by respondent No. 2 and had also not paid the requisite fee of Rs. 50 as required, in view of G.R. 17 ‘Transfers’ of India Motor Tariff (the amended tariff came into force w.e.f., 1.07.02). So, the appellants are not liable to pay compensation for loss of the vehicle.”
On a careful perusal of the above cited ruling, we hold that it is applicable in the instant case also as in this case the complainant actually did not apply to transfer the insurance policy of the previous owner in his name within 14 days since the date of purchase and within that period he did not pay the requisite fee.
Therefore, considering the facts of this case and in view of the above cited ruling our view is that the complainant is not entitled to get the claim amount as prayed for. We do also hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in repudiating the claim of the complainant. In result the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/11/25 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs without any cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
