West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/143/2015

Md Fulsuddin Ahamad Belal - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Co Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Kr Acharya

11 Oct 2018

ORDER

The case of the Complainant Md. Fulsuddin, in brief is that he purchased a motor bike which was covered under an Insurance Policy of the opposite party being policy No. 39010231146201139024 IDV of Rs. 61,256/- valid up to 10/06/2015.

            It is the further case of the Complainant that on 25/03/2015 the complainant had been to the Rampurhat by his motor bike to hospital for treatment at outdoor of the Hospital. That he kept the bike after keeping handle lock in front of the stand. That the complainant returned within 5 minutes and did not find the said motor bike. That he tried to find out the bike but, he could not trace out the same. That immediately after the incident the complainant informed the matter before the Rampurhat P.S and the insurance company over telephone and thereafter in writing. That the complainant submitted all the relevant documents along with claim from in the month of June, 2015 for insurance claim of his stolen motor bike.

            It is the next case of the Complainant several time he visited the office of the O.P and requested them to settle his insurance claim, but they did not pay any heed and they also did not settle the insurance claim of the complainant till date.

            Hence this case for directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 61,256/- as insurance claim with 14% interest since 25/03/2015 with other relief.

            The O.P Insurance Company has contested the case by filing the written version denying all material allegation in the complainant and contending interalia the case is not main table and the complainant has no cause of action to bring this case.

            It is the specific case of the OP/Ins. Co. that fact is that the O.P Insurance Company came to learn from the insured/complainant for the first time on 04/06/2015 that the alleged incident of theft was occurred on 25/03/2015 which was more than 72 days after the alleged incident and same is utterly violation of the terms and condition of the policy on the part of the complainant/insured. For that this O.P lost the opportunity to trace out the theft vehicle. That the complainant also lodged a written complainant/F.I.R. before the Rampurhat P.S on 02/06/2015 and Rampurhat P.S started Rampurhat P.S Case No. 144/2015 i.e after more than 70 days of the alleged incident. Which is also violation of the terms and condition of the policy. That the complainant did not file information before the O.P. National Insurance Co. as well as the concerned police station in due time observing terms and condition of the policy. So it can safely be said that the insured/complainant violated the policy conditions and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P/insurance Company by not entertaining the claim of the Complainant.

 

It is the next case of the OP/Insurance Co. that they have rightly repudiated the claim and there is no deficiency on the part of the Op and no cause of action arose on an from 25/03/2015 and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and the case is liable to be dismissed with costs.

Considering the complaint and other materials on record with think following points are to be decided in this case.

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.?
2. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

During the trial the complainant Md Fulsuddin Ahamad Belal has been examined himself as Pw 1. He also filed some documents.

Opw 1 kousik hansda is the administrative officer of the OP/Insurance Company. The OP also filed some documents.

Heard arguments of both sides.

Point No.1:- Complainant Md. Fulsuddin,  purchased a motor bike which was covered under an Insurance Policy of the opposite party being policy No. 39010231146201139024 IDV of Rs. 61,256/- valid up to 10/06/2015.

            So, the complainant is a consumer U/S 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.

Point No.2:- The OP/Insurance Company has branch office within jurisdiction of the forum.

            Total valuation of the case is Rs. 61,256/- plus interest which is far less than maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum i.e. Rs. 20,00,000/-. So, this Forum has pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try this case.

Point No. 3 and 4:- Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion as they are related to each other.

            The complainant Md Fulsuddin Ahamad Belal in his evidence stated that he purchased a motor bike which was covered under Insurance Policy of the opposite party being policy No. 39010231146201139024 IDV of Rs. 61,256/- valid up to 10/06/2015.

            Copy of invoice dated 07/06/2014 shows that the complainant purchased the motor cycle in question at a net price Rs. 64,480/-.

            Copy of the registration certificate shows that motor cycle no. WB-46/4673 has been duly registered the name of the complainant.

            Copy of the receipt dated 24/06/2014 shows that life time tax was paid by the complainant in respect of the bike being No. WB-46/4673.

            Copy of the insurance certificate issued by the OP/Insurance Company shows that bike in question was duly insured for the period 17/06/2014 to 16/06/2015 with IDV of Rs. 61,256/-.

            The complainant in his evidence further state that on 25/03/2015 the complainant had been to the Rampurhat by his motor bike to hospital for treatment at outdoor of the Hospital. That he kept the bike after keeping handle lock in front of the stand. That the complainant returned within 5 minutes and did not find the said motor bike. That he tried to find out the bike but, he could not trace out the same. That immediately

after the incident the complainant informed the matter before the Rampurhat P.S and the insurance company

 

over telephone and thereafter in writing. That the complainant submitted all the relevant documents along with claim from in the month of June, 2015 for insurance claim of his stolen motor bike.

            Copy of the formal FIR, FIR and final report show that the complainant lodged a complainant regarding theft of his motor cycle before police and police started Rampurhat that P.S Case No. 144/15 dated 02/06/2015 U/S 379 IPC and the police case was ended in final report.

            Copy of the claim form submitted by the complainant shows that on 04/06/2015 he submitted claim application along with documents before OP/Insurance Company.

            We further find that it is the case of OP/Insurance Company that they have duly repudiated the claim of the complainant as he has informed police by lodging FIR 70 days after the alleged incident and there by violated condition of policy.

            Repudiation letter dated 12/11/2015 sent to complainant, shows that the vehicle was stolen 25/03/2015 but he informed police and Insurance Company on 02/06/2015 and 04/06/2015 respectively, which were after 70 and 72 days respectively form the date of theft and as such police an Insurance Company had lost opportunity to trace out the vehicle and as per judgment passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC dated 09/12/2009 that may be ground for repudiation of claim.

            But we find that in a ruling reported in 2018(1) ICC 237 Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of theft of vehicle pleased to hold that it is common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straightaway go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle. It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle. However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances. Delay of 8 days condoned. Insurance company held liable to pay.

            We find that it is the case of complainant that immediate after the incident he informed P.S orally and informed Insurance Company by telephone and thereafter in writing.

            It comes out form the cross-examination of the Pw1 Md Fulsuddin Ahamad Belal that on the dated of theft he informed P.S orally and on next date in writing.

            It also comes out that on date of the incident he informed Insurance Company by telephone and on the next date he informed them in writing.

            OPW 1 in his cross-examination further admitted that insured/complainant informed about the incident on 26/03/2015 to Insurance Company.

            We find from the copy of the intimation dated 26/03/2015 submitted by the complainant to the OP/Insurance Company Suri Branch, which was duly received by the putting seal and signature of the branch that he informed about theft of his bike happened on 25/03/2015.

            Copy of the intimation dated 26/03/2015 submitted by the complainant to Rampurhat P.S, which was also received with seal and signature of the Rampurhat P.S that he also informed P.S about theft of his motor cycle held on 25/03/2015.

            During herring of argument Ld. Advocate/Agent of the OP/Insurance Company claimed that both the documents are manufactured documents.

            But it is the settled law that apparent state of thing is real state of thing, if not proved otherwise by cogent evidence.

 

 

We find that in the present case the OP has failed to adduce any evidence to prove that both the documents are manufactured document.

            We find form the intimation dated 26/03/2014 submitted by the complainant that he informed police on 26/03/2014 intimating that his motor cycle No. W.B-46/4673 had been taken/stolen form the Rampurhat Hospital campus.

            In view of section 154 criminal procedure code 1973, it is the duty of every officer in charge of the P.S to draw FIR on basis of information regarding cognizable offense but in the present case inspire of receipt of information regarding cognizable offence like theft police took no action and certainly OP/Insurance Company cannot get benefit of such fault of the police.

            Considering overall mater in to considerate and materials on the record due find that the complainant has been able to prove his case of theft of his motor cycle and he informed police and Insurance Company in due time and repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the OP/Insurance Company is illegal, which amounts to illegal trade proactive and deficiency in service.

            Both the points are decided in favour of the complainant.

                         Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that C.F case No. 143/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest  with cost  of Rs. 2000/-.

The Op National Insurance Co Limited is directed to pay a sum of Rs.61,256/- as Insurance claim with 6% interest since 25/03/2015 till realization to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order as per law and procedure.

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.