The instant case arose over non-settlement of complainant’s insurance claim by the OPs. It is stated by the complainant that he submitted an insurance claim before the OP no. 1 towards theft of his motor cycle. However, the OP no. 1, instead of settling his legitimate claim, passed the buck upon the OP no. 2 on the ground that the latter deposited the premium amount into the account of the OP no. 1 after the theft of motor cycle took place. The complainant though sent legal notices upon the OPs twice, none of them choose to respond to the same. Hence the instant complaint seeking for relief as per prayer of the complaint.
The OP no. 1 contested the case steadfastly by filing written version and written notes on argument. They also took a positive part in the hearing. By their written version, they denied all the material allegations of the complainant. They also denied any laches on their part and squarely held the OP no. 2 responsible for the total mess and accordingly, sought for summary dismissal of the instant case against them.
It is to be noted that although the OP no. 2 received notice, he did not turn up to contest the case. Hence, the case was heard ex-parte against them.
Both sides filed photocopies of some documents in support their contention and neither of them raised any objection about the authenticity of the same; instead referred the same to drive home their point.
Points for consideration
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we frame the following issues for proper illustration of the matter.
- Whether the instant case is maintainable in its present form?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as sought for?
Decisions with reasons
Issue nos. 1 to 3:
All the above issues are taken up collectively for the convenience of discussion.
We have carefully gone through the materials on record including the written version and written notes of argument on record and considered the arguments of the ld. Advocates of both sides.
The OP no. 1 has not raised any objection as regards maintainability of this case. In fact they have admitted that the complainant is a consumer under them. Moreover, materials on record clearly establish that the complainant is a bona fide consumer under the OPs. As such, we hold that the instant case is maintainable in its present form.
Admittedly, the complainant deposited his insurance premium for the year 2010-11 with the OP no. 2 on 24-08-2010 and upon receipt of such premium, the OP no. 2, who happens to be the Corporate Agent of the OP no. 1, issued Insurance Certificate in favour of the complainant which was valid for the period from 26-08-2010 to 25-08-2011 (midnight). It is also admitted that the theft of motor cycle in question took place on 01-01-2011 while the insurance certificate in question, issued by the OP no. 2 on behalf of the OP no. 1, was in force. Further, it is also admitted fact that the OP no. 1 did not return the premium proceeds in respect of the complainant’s policy upon receipt of the same on account of belated deposit by their Corporate Agent i.e. OP no. 2.
From the aforesaid admitted facts it is clear that the complainant had been quite diligent in renewing the insurance policy by depositing requisite premium thereof with the OP no. 2, being the authorized agent of OP no. 1, well within the stipulated timeframe. Against this backdrop where a consumer has acted in good faith to renew the insurance policy by depositing premium amount with the authorized agent of the insurance company, the inaction of OP no. 1 to settle the insurance claim of the complainant really raises eyebrows specially while the OP no. 1 themselves claim that the business of insurance rests on utmost good faith. As regards OP no. 1”s plea that OP no. 2 is solely responsible for the present mess up since they did not deposit the proceeds of premium of the complainant into the account of the OP no. 1 in time, we are to say that since they authorized the OP no. 2 as their Corporate Agent, they cannot evade their liability in case their authorized agent indulges in any misdeed. In any case, if they have any grievance against their authorized agent, they are well within their legitimate right to take necessary administrative and legal recourse, if so advised against the OP no. 2. However, under any circumstance that cannot be a cogent ground to sit over the legitimate claim of a bona fide consumer.
Taking into consideration the fact that – (1) the theft of motor cycle is not in dispute (2) premium was paid by the consumer to the authorized agent of the OP no. 1 within time (3) insurance certificate was issued by the OP no. 2 on behalf of the OP no. 1 in their capacity as the Corporate Agent of the Insurance Co. much before the occurrence of theft (4) it is not the case of the OP no. 1 that the insurance claim of the complainant is otherwise invalid, we do not find any rationality behind the apathy of the OP no. 1 to settle the legitimate insurance claim of the complainant. Needless to say, this is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for which they are not only jointly and severally responsible to extend insurance benefit to the complainant, they are also liable to pay compensation Rs. 5,000/- and litigation cost Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant.
Accordingly, all the above issues answer in favour of the complainant.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the instant CC case no. 12/2011 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP no. 1 and ex-parte against the OP no. 2. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to settle the insurance claim of Rs. 45,780/- together with compensation Rs. 5,000/- and litigation cost Rs. 2,000/-to the complainant within 45 days from the date of communication of this order i.d. the complainant is at liberty to execute the order in accordance with law in which case, the OPs will be further liable to pay fine @ Rs. 50/- per diem from the date of this order till full and final settlement.
S.S. Ali Dr. S. Dutta A.K. Bhattacharyya
Member Member President
