BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

CACHAR :: SILCHAR

Con. Case No. 34 of 2018

                Mr. Anarul Haque Laskar

            Daksin Krishnapur, Silchar……………………………………………………………………… Complainant. 

                                                            -V/S-

1. National Insurance Co.Ltd. Represented by its Branch Manager.

Silchar Branch Office, Club Road.

Present: -                                Sri Bishnu Debnath,                                         President,

District Consumer Forum,

                                                Cachar, Silchar.                                            

                                                            Sri Kamal Kumar Sarda,                                        Member,

                                                            District Consumer Forum,

                                                            Cachar, Silchar.                                            

            Appeared: -    Mr. Ajmal H Laskar, Advocate for the complainant.

                                       Mrs. Pratima Ghosh, Advocate for the O.P.

                                                 Date of Evidence                                       16-03-2019, 05-04-2019

                         Date of written argument                           28-05-2019

                         Date of oral argument                                 02-07-2019, 03-07-2019

                         Date of judgment                                         12-07-2019

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

                                 Sri Bishnu Debnath,

1. This case has been brought under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the National Insurance Co. Ltd. Silchar Branch (referred as O.P.) for award of compensation on account of stealing away of the insured vehicle bearing Regd.No.As 24/C-1503.

2. The brief facts:

The Complainant Anarul Haque Laskar is the registered owner of TATA Sumo Vehicle bearing Registration No.As-24/C-1503. The said vehicle was insured with O.P. for the period from 02/04/2014 to 01/04/2015 vide Insurance Policy No. 20050131146300000097. But very unfortunately the said vehicle has been stolen away on 15/02/2015. Accordingly, FIR lodged and police registered Silchar P/S case No.429/2015 (corresponding to the G.R case No.847/2015 U/S 379 IPC. After investigation Police failed to recover the vehicle and also unable to identify the thief. Hence, finding no alternate submitted FR. The said FR has been accepted by the learned CTM, Cachar on 20/04/2016. The matter has been informed to the O.P. and subsequently submitted claim Form to the O.P. But, O.P. repudiated the claim on 08/09/2017 on the ground that permit of the said vehicle was fake.

3. Hence, the Complainant prayed for award to get sum insured and compensation for mental agony etc. The O.P. in its W/S stated inter alia that on investigation by its investigator, Dulal Chandra Sharma found that the permit which has been submitted by the Complainant in connection with the claim was not genuine and accordingly matter was intimated to the Complainant on 09/02/2018 vide letter No. 200500/Tech/11/SKDR/ADR/834 dated 09/02/2018.

4. During hearing the Complainant submitted deposition supporting affidavit and also exhibited some documents. The O.P. also examine Manik Lal Paul, i.e Branch Manager and exhibited some documents including investigation Report and intimation of the O/O the Commission of Transport, Assam regarding permit of the vehicle vide No. CT.RTI/135/2017. However, after closing evidence both sides’ counsels submitted the written argument.

5. I have heard oral argument of both sides counsels and perused the evidence on record including written argument.

6. In this case the fact of theft of vehicle is not challenged by the O.P. but the plea of the O.P. is that the permit which has been submitted by the Complainant was fake. Not only that but also took defense plea that the ignition key which have been deposited by the Complainant to the O.P. in order to get the claim are also not genuine rather mismatching.

7. The O.P. submitted the keys as material Ext.E but from the evidence on record I do not find as how the O.P. justified the plea that keys are mismatching. No, iota of material evidence available in the record to conclude that the keys vide materials as Ext.E are not keys of the stolen vehicle. Hence, the plea of the O.P. as stated above regarding keys not accepted.

8. However, the O.P. stated that the permit of the vehicle is fake. Accordingly, the D.W deposed on oath to establish a fact that the investigator Dulal Chandra Sharma during investigation collected information from Transport Authority, Assam through RTI that the permit is fake. The information is exhibited with investigator’s report vide Ext.F. The language of the RTI is as below:-

“As per our office record the authenticity & genuineness of the of the above permit is not confirm”

9. The said RTI information is remain un-rebuttable in the record along with investigators Report, vide Ext.F. Thus, it is concluded that except the permit of the insured vehicle other documents are remain unchallenged.

10. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled to get back the price of the stolen vehicle on non-standard basis in view of the observation of the National Commission in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Gian Singh,2006 CT5221(CP) (NCDRC). The National Commission held in that case that in a case of violation of condition of policy as to the nature of use of the vehicle, the claim settled on non-standard basis. Subsequently in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Narayan Prasad Appaprasad Pathak, (2006) CPJ.144(NC) the National Commission set out the guidelines as below:-

1. In case of under declaration of licensed carrying capacity – Percentage of settlement is – Deduct 3 years difference in premium from the amount of claim or deduct 25% of claim amount whichever is higher.
2. In case of over loading of vehicles beyond licensed carrying capacity – Percentage of settlement is – Pay Claim not exceeding 75% of admissible claim and
3. In case of any other breach of warrantee/condition of policy including limitation as to use – Percentage of settlement- Pay upto 75% of admissible claim.

11. In the instant case it is concluded that permit condition was not valid for which the claimant is entitled 75% of the sum insured of the vehicle as per non-standard basis of calculation, sum insured of the vehicle is Rs.2,60,000/-. Thus, 75% of that claim is Rs.1,95,000/-. In addition the claimant is entitled Rs.7,000/- for mental agony and cost of the proceeding of Rs.3,000/-.

12. Therefore, the O.P. is asked to make payment of aforesaid awarded amount of Rs.1,95,000 + 7,000 + 3,000 = Rs.2,05,000/-, within 45 days from today. In default, interest at rate of 10% per annum to be added to the awarded amount from the date of defaulter.

13. With the above, this case is disposed of on contest. Supply free certified copy of this Judgment to the parties. Given under my and seal of this District Forum on this the 12^th day of July, 2019.