West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/168/2017

Sri Asit Kumar Bera - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Swapan Bhattacharya

26 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

    Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member

and

  Sagarika Sarkar, Member.

Complaint Case No.168/2017

Asit Kumar Bera,  S/o-Late Kanailal Bera Resident of Gambhirnagar, P.O.& P.S.Ghatal,

                                 Dist.Paschim Medinipur.

                  ………………Complainant.

-Vs-                

National Insurance Co.Ltd., Ghatal Business Centre at Konnagar,  P.O.& P.S.Ghatal,  Dist.Paschim Medinipur.                                                         

                                                       .....……….….Opp. Party.

                         For the Complainant: Mr. Swapan Bhattacharya, Advocate.

                         For the O.P./O.Ps.    : Mr. Anathbandhu Ghosh, Advocate.

                                                          

                                                                                         Date of filling:-  08/11/2017

  Decided on : -    26/04/2018

                               

ORDER

               Pulak Kumar Singha, Member :- In short the case of the complainant is that he is owner of two wheeler bearing No.WB-34Z/9127 which was insured with the O.P. and Policy was valid from 03,4.2015 to 02.4.2016. Said vehicle was met with an accident and complainant intimated the matter to O.P.but O.P.was reluctant to settle the claim,though complainant repaired his vehicle by his own cost. On 03.6.2015 at about 12.50 p.m. complainant after due locked the said Motor-cycle went to S.B.I.Ghatal Branch and when he return back he did not find his said motor-cycle and search here and there but in vain. Complainant lodged F.I.R.before Ghatal P.S.who started theft case and after investigation submitted F.I.R. Complainant also intimated O.P. and submitted claim but O.P.did not entertain the claim of said

                                                                                                                                                                       Contd…………P/2

 

 

                                                                                                                    ( 2 )

 vehicle. Complainant approached before this Forum for getting relief as per prayer of his complaint.

  O.P. contested the case by filing Written Objection denying the allegations of complainant stating inter-alia that the claim is barred by limitation, O.P. demanded to submit two keys of the vehicle, complainant suppressed the actual fact of theft, complainant did not repair his damaged vehicle as such O.P. repudiated his earlier claim, complainant did not take proper care and protection to save his vehicle, O.P. has no deficiency in service. O.P. prays for dismissal of complaint.

               Decision with Reasons :

                      We carefully perused the complaint, written objection, evidence and documents. Fact of the case is that complainant’s vehicle bearing No.WB-34Z/9127(Two Wheeler)was duly insured with the O.P. and within the policy validity period i.e. on 03.6.2015 while the complainant at about 12.50 p.m. after locking the motor-cycle entered into S.B.I., Ghatal Branch and after return back from bank the complainant found his motor-cycle was missing and could not trace out. Complainant informed Ghatal P.S. on the same day and P.S. after completion of investigation submitted Final Report but motor-cycle in question could not trace out. Complainant informed O.P.-Insurance Co. and lodged claim for compensation but O.P. did not consider his claim.

                     Complainant to prove his case adduced evidence by way filing examination in chief supported by affidavit and submitted some documents which are exhibited. Complaint was cross examined by O.P., in cross-examination P.W.1 stated that he informed the matter O.P. within 7 days from the date of accident.

Be it mentioned here that said motor-cycle was met with an accident in the month of May 2015 and lodged claim for repairing cost but O.P. did not pay.

O.P.by filing Written Objection stated that theft information in respect of vehicle in question was intimated to O.P. after passing 136 days of incident but it appears from (Exhibit-3) O.Ps. letter dated-10.3.2017 that O.P. wants to clarification of delay intimation of 9 days in respect of theft. So, statement of long delay information by O.P.is totally false. O.P. raised objection for non-settling the claim due to non-submission another ignition key. It is admitted by O.P. that complainant lodged claim with documents and deposited one ignition key which was in the possession of complainant, in reply of quarry of another ignition key informed the O.P. that same was lost during flood period.

                                                                                                                                                                         Contd…………P/3

 

 

                                                        

                                                                                                                      ( 3 )

It is admitted that vehicle in question was duly insured by O.P. and said vehicle was theft and theft intimation was reported by complainant very short period to the concern P.S. and after investigation vehicle was not trace out, as such police submitted F.R.T. Complainant lodged claim compensation before O.P. but O.P. did not process the claim due to non submission of another ignition key and non clarify the delay of information in respect of theft. In cross-examination by O.P. Complainant stated in his evidence that another ignition key was lost during flood period and 9 days delay of intimation in the matter of theft will not effect the claim as complainant immediately intimated the matter to concerned P.S. who started Ghatal, P.S. Case No.165/15 dated-03.6.15 and also started investigation which is not possible for O.P. O.P. did not adduce any evidence and did not prove their case by any cogent evidence. From the copy of policy IDV mentioned Rs.19,500/-(Value of the vehicle).

In view of the discussions hereinabove we think that complainant proved his case and O.P. fails to prove his defense. O.P. has negligent and deficiency in service as such complainant is entitled to get an order as per prayer of his complaint.

                      Thus complaint case succeeds.

                           Hence, it is,

                                             Ordered,

                                             that the complaint case be and same is allowed on contest against the O.P. with cost. O.P.is directed to pay Rs.19,500/-as value of the vehicle, to pay Rs.2,000/-as compensation for harassment, pain and suffering and also to pay Rs.1,000/-as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of order.

                         Failure to comply O.P. shall be liable to pay Rs.2,000/-per month as penal cost to be paid to the Legal Aid Fund of this Forum till realization.                                                                    

Dictated and Corrected by me

           Sd/-P.K. Singha                         Sd/-S. Sarkar                       Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                Member                                      Member                               President

                                                                                                            District Forum

                                                                                                         Paschim Medinipur