SRI BIJOY KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in service in respect of non-settlement of complainant’s theft motor cycle are the allegations arrayed against the Opp. Parties.
2. Complaint, in nutshell reveals that, Complainant purchased a Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle bearing Regd.No.OD-29-1661 and insured the vehicle with OP-Insurance Company for a declared value of Rs.31,674/-. The insurance of the complainant’s motor cycle covers the period from dtd.24.11.2015 to midnight of dtd.23.11.2016. It is stated that at about 8.30 PM on dtd.30.08.2016 while the complainant was working in his chamber at Balia Bazar by parking his motor cycle in the road side near his chamber at Balia, the vehicle was stolen by unknown culprits. Complainant informed the Insurance Company and as well as lodged the complaint before the Kendrapara Sadar Police Station bearing case No.291/16 which was registered as GR Case No.1463/16. On the claim of the complainant, Surveyor of the OP-Insurance Company namely Chittaranjan Mallick investigated the claim and all the documents as narrated in the paragraph 5 of the complaint were submitted to the investigator. But inspite of complainant’s best effort the OP-Insurance Company did not settle the claim of the complainant. The cause of action of the instant case arose on dtd.24.11.2015 when the vehicle is insured and lastly on dtd.30.08.2016 the date when the occurrence happened. In the complaint it is prayed that a direction be issued to the Ops for settlement of the claim to the tune of Rs.31,674/- with 12 per cent interest from the date of theft of vehicle and to award Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony alongwith cost of litigation.
3. Upon notice Md. Nayeem,Learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the Ops and filed written version into the dispute. In the written version the Ops deny the allegations and submitted the facts,it is averred that complainant’s motor cycle was insured with Ops vide Policy No. 345106/31/2016/4097 which was valid from dtd.24.11.2015 to midnight of dtd.23.11.2016 for Rs.31,574/-.As per the report of the S.I. of Police Sri Satyanarayan Senapati the theft occurred on dtd.30.08.2016 and a case was registered U/S-379 of I.P.C. as true but no clue, if in future any clue obtained, the case will reopen. In the written version it is prayed that the complaint is to be dismissed with cost as it is filed on illegally and arbitrary.
4. Heard the arguments advanced by complainant who is by profession an advocate and Ld. Counsel Mr. Nayeem appearing for the Ops. Complainant to substantiate his case filed attested photo copy of F.I.R.alongwith other documents related to G.R.Case No.1463/16,attested photo copy of insurance certificate-cum-policy schedule, attested photo copy of application to NCRB, Govt. of India dtd.17.12.17. On perusal of documents, complaint and written version of Ops it is an admitted fact that the case vehicle was insured, OP-Insurance Company and the said policy was valid from dtd.24.11.2015 to midnight of dtd.23.11.2016. It is also admitted that the vehicle was stolen on dtd.30.08.2016 and on information concerned Police Station Registered a case U/S-379 I.P.C. It is a fact that the I.D.V of the vehicle is for Rs.31,674/- as per the Policy schedule and after completion of investigation police submitted the F.F. with opinion that fact is true but no clue. It is also a fact that one Chittaranjan Mallick was appointed as ‘Investigator’ in connection to the enquiry of the claim. The letter dtd.30.01.2017 of insurance company reveals that, the claim of the complainant is not tenable for non-submission of documents. On response to the letter of Chittaranjan Mallick, Investigator dtd.11.07.17 in relation to submission of documents, complainant issued a letter on dtd.07.07.2017 informing the investigator that except the Charge sheet of P.S.Case No.291/16 dtd.30.08.2016 all the documents are submitted to the office of the Ops. But the true facts of the case are that, complainant has submitted all the relevant documents before OP-Insurance Company for settlement of claim. On the otherhand Ops have not justified the reasons of delay of settlement of claim. It is also revealed from the written version of the Ops that, no other grounds or terms and conditions of the policy is violated by the complainant for settlement of the claim.Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the claim of the complainant in respect of theft of vehicle is to be settled by the OP-Insurance Company as per the I.D.V. of Rs.31,674/- alongwith compensation for delayed settlement of claim.
Having observations reflected above, it directed that Ops shall settle the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs.31,674/- and shall pay simple interest of six per cent calculating from dtd.30.08.2016 to till its realization, failing which 9 per cent interest will be charged for the delayed period. It is further directed that Ops shall pay an amount of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only as compensation for mental agony. The ordered amount will be paid within one month of receipt of this order,
Complaint is allowed in part with cost on contest against the Ops.
Pronounced in the open Court, this 26th day of July-2019.
I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
