Date of filing:-19/09/2016.

Date of Order:-08/01/2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)

B A R G A R H.

Consumer Complaint No. 32 of 2016.

Shyam Charan Pradhan S/O-Fakir Mohan Pradhan ,aged about-42 yrs,R/O-Back side of Private Bus Stand,Ward No-16 Bargarh Po/Dist-Bargarh. ..... .... Complainant.

-: V e r s u s :-

M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co,Ltd,2 nd floor,Dare House ,2 NSC Bose Road,Chennai-600001. ..... ..... Opposite Party.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :- Sri D.D. Mishra, Advocate with others Advocates.

For the Opposite Parties :- Sri B.K. Purohit,, Advocate with others Advocates.

-: P R E S E N T :-

Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.

Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).

Dt.08/01/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-

Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-

Brief Facts of the Case;-

The case of the Complainant in brief is pertaining to the deficiencies in rendering service on the Part of the Opposite Party as hereunder.

That the Complainant has purchased one Bolero Pick up Van vide Registered no. OR 17 K 4194 to earn his livelihood and got it insured with the Opposite Parties vide Policy No-.3379/101080241/000/00 for a period of one year Commencing from Dt.27/08/2014 to 26/08/2015 and that during the subsistence of the policy period the said Vehicle was stolen on Dt. 28/09/2014.

The Complainant reported the matter of theft before the Bargarh town Police station which was registered and finally the police after Investigation submitted his final report as a true case ,And then the Complainant made claim for the Loss of the Vehicle before the Opposite Party but it was declined by the Opposite Party on the ground that the case is misrepresented before them regarding the theft of the same,Thus the cause of action arosed and the case has been filed claiming the insured amount along with compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only in lieu of his mental and physical harassment caused to him by the un-fair trade practice consequent upon the refusal of his Claim . And in substantiating his case has relied upon the following Documents.

1.Xerox Copy of the R.C. Book of the Vehicle bearing Regd No-OR 17 K 4194.

2.XEROX COPY OF THE Insurance Certificate of the Policy of the Vehicle bearing No-3379/01080241/000/00.

3.Xerox Copy of the Letter Dt.20,01,2016 issued by the Opposite party in favor of the Complainant .

4.Xerox Copy of the certified copy of the F.I.R. in C.T.No-818/14 of the court of S.D.J.M Bargarh .

5. Xerox Copy of the Final Form in C.T.No-818/2014 of the S.D.J.M Bargarh.

On perusal the Complaint ,the documents filed by the complainant and on hearing his Counsel ,the Case was admitted by the forum and notice was served on the Opposite Party and in response to the same the Opposite Party appeared before the Forum and filed it’s version .

In it’s version the Opposite Party has stated to have repudiated the Claim of the Complainant rightly on the ground that the case has been filed beyond the term and condition of the Policy and that contended that the Insurance policy has been managed to have made with the help of some on-Holly person specially to make out a case of the Claim against the Opposite Party as such has not been reported before the Police immediately after the theft and also has claimed, that due to the malafied intention, the date of F.I.R.has not been mentioned but on proper verification of the case from the police station by it’s authorized personel it has been found that though the alleged theft has been committed on Dt-28/09/2014 but as per the confession of one of the culprit arrested by the police during it’s course of investigation the theft was committed by him on Dt.20/07/2014 which was out side the period of policy period and thus has claimed to have rightly repudiated the Claim of the Complainant and has prayed before the Forum to dismiss the case ,and in support of his case the counsel for the Opposite Party argued out the case vehemently and also has filed a written argument to that affect along with a lot of decision of various Higher courts. claiming his points of arguments justified.

So having gone through the Complaint ,the documents and the version filed by the Opposite party and it supporting materials it came to our Notice that the case rests on the following points for proper adjudication of the case.

i. Whether the case is Maintainable in the present form.

ii. Whether the Opposite party is deficient in rendering service and has played un-fair trade practice against the Complainant.

iii.Whether the Complainant is entitled for the Compensation as claimed for.

So while Examining the case relating to the question as to whether the case is maintainable in the present form ,It Came to our notice that the Opposite Party has admitted the case of the Complainant with regard to the Insurance made by him with it’s Company and also has admitted to have been served with the Claim petition made by him for indemnification against the Loss due to the theft., so in our view we don’t feel it necessary to go in to those admitted case ,but to consider as to whether the theft has been committed during the subsistence of the policy period or not. In this regard we dealt with the materials available in the record with much care and taking the arguments advanced by the Counsels and the notes of arguments of the respective Parties ,wherein the Advocate for the Opposite party claimed that the Insurance policy has been made with them but the Occurrence of theft has been committed beyond the Period of policy hence it is not tenable and in it’s support has relied upon the Police paper and the Statement of the Culprit made before the Police U/S 161 Crpc wherein the date of occurance differs with the date of the Claim of the Complainant,and on the Contrary the Counsel for the Complainant Claimed the Date of theft is Correct which is within the period of the insurance policy,so while we referred the documents to that effect We found that After one month of the Commencement of the Policy made by the Complainant the alleged occurrence of theft has taken Place and also it reveals from the record that the Opposite party has insured the Vehicle on it’s own, which is supposed to have verified the Vehicle in question and has accepted the Proposal and to substantiate his case in as much as it is the Mandatory duty of the insurer Opposite Party to physically verify the vehicle and accept the Proposal,And as it has been admitted by the opposite party to have insured the same ,it can be safely inferred that after due verification only the insurance has commenced in addition to that the Advocate for the Complainant asked the Opposite Party through the Forum by filing a petition to produce the Proposal form if in case his claim is contradictory to the version of the Opposite Party to which the Opposite Party failed ,from where it can be safely inferred that the insurance policy has been done prior to the case of theft of the same with out any ambiguity .

And so far as the statement of the accused person recorded by the police U/S 161 Crpc, the same statement before the police can not be considered as a conclusive proof unless it is proved with due scrutiny as per the Evidence Act hence in our considerate view the same statement can’t be taken in to consideration and with regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the Large numbers of citations of the Apex court of the country filed by the Opposite Party are not similar to the present case further more the guideline provided by the Central Regulation and also the State regulation to avoid the references of Voluminous Decision as far as practicable if it does not require for proper adjudication of the case as such we feel it not necessary to go in to details of the same specially because the case in Hand is free from any ambiguity. Hence it is answered accordingly in assertive in favor of the Complainant.

Secondly while dealing with the points as to whether the Opposite Party is deficient in rendering service to the Complainant and has committed un-fair trade practice thereby, As we have already discussed in details in our foregoing Paragraph with regard to the maintainability of the case and have expressed our view in favor of the complainant it is clear that the Opposite Party has insured the vehicle in question to indemnify the Loss as per the policy condition and accepted the Proposal , So now at this stage of the incident he cannot repudiate the claim with a plea that the same was not within the policy period, further more it has failed to show any documentary evidence to that effect even at the demand of the same by the complainant ,so in view of the above facts and circumstances we are of the that the Opposite Party has committed un-fair trade practice and deficiencies of service by repudiating the claim of the complainant without any concrete ground hence it is also answered in favor of the Complainant.

Thirdly with regard to the entitlement of the compensation by the Complainant ,as we have already dealt with the case in details and have opined in favor of the complainant, it is obvious that the Complainant is very much entitled for the sum assured amount and compensation, hence our views expressed unanimously in support of the Complainant ,as such order follows.

O R D E R

Hence the Opposite Party is directed to Pay an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-(Rupees tree lakh fifty thousand) only with interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of filing the case and pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand)only in lieu of mental agony and physical harassment to the Complainant within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order,in default the Total amount would carry an interest @ 9% P.A. till the actual realization of the amount.

Accordingly the complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party and the same is pronounced in the Open Forum to-day i.e. on Dt08.01.2018 and the case is disposed off.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

 ( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)

          P r e s i d e n t.

                     I agree,                                        I agree,

(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)      ( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)

              M e m b e r.                  M e m b e r (W)