West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/144/2017

Prasanta Bairi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Satyajit Chakraborty

27 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

   Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and

Sagarika Sarkar, Member. 

 

Complaint Case No.144/2017

 

                                     Prasanta Bairi, S/o Lt. Siddheswar Bairi, Vill. Balarampur, P.O.Bandar, P.S. Ghatal,

                                                                                        District- Paschim Medinipur.   

                                                                                                                    ………..……Complainant.

                                                                                                           Vs.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. represented by its Manager, at Station Road, P.O. Medinipur, District- Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721101.

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

                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Satyajit Chakraborty, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Mirza Md. Galib Chowdhury, Advocate.

                                                          

                                                                                         Date of filing:05/09/2017

Decided on: - 27 /04/2018

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President –This consumer complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act has been filed by the complainant Sri Prasanta Bairi against the O.P. –National Insurance Company Ltd.

               Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows:-

               Complainant Prasanta Bairi insured his motor cycle with the O.P.-Insurance Company vide policy no.39010231166202885959 covering the period from 12.10.2016 to 11.10.2017 with contract for payment of any kind of accidental damage in the head of OWN DAMAGE Claim. On 29.10.2016, the complainant kept his motor cycle in his neighbor’s house and on that night at about 2.30 a.m., the complainant after hearing shouting of his neighbor, found that  fire had set on his motor cycle.  Seeing that, he went

                                                                                                                                                     Contd……………….P/2.

                                                      

                                                                                                    ( 2 )

there and put off fire but in the mean time, the vehicle was totally brunt.  The complainant informed the said matter to Ghatal P.S. on 30.10.2016 and he also intimated the incident in the office of the O.P.-Insurance Company at Chandrakona Road Branch, Santbankura and submitted all documents to the O.P.-Insurance Company on 29.11.2016.  Thereafter the O.P.-Insurance Company sent a letter to the complainant asking him to submit R.C. Book, tax token and fire brigade report.  The complainant replied the said letter.  The insured motor cycle was a brand new and no registration was made and there was also no scope to call fire brigade at the relevant time of accident.  Complainant went to the office of the O.P.-Insurance Company again and again but they did not take care for disposal of his claim and thereby they have caused  deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the O.P.-Insurance Company to pay Rs.53,041/- towards the declared value of the motor cycle with interest and for other reliefs e.g. compensation and litigation cost.

                   The O.P. has contested this case by filling a written version.  

                    Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the O.P.-Insurance Company that the present complaint is pre-matured in nature as because police has not filed any investigation report in connection with the occurrence of setting fire of the motor cycle.  It is stated that the motor cycle was burnt within only 15 to 20 days of purchase and the complainant did not intimate the incident to the Hero Motor Company to ascertain the cause of fire which may happen due to problem in battery.    It is further stated by the O.P. that the incident of burning motor cycle is due to fault/mishandling by the complainant himself or by other person and for this reason he did not file police report in connection with the said incident.  The complainant also did not submit any fire bridged report which could have established the cause and nature of fire.  Without such report, the complainant cannot claim that the setting of fire was accidental in nature.  It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P.-Insurance Company and hence the O.P. prays for  dismissal of the complaint with cost.

             To prove his case, the complainant Prasanta Bairi has examined himself as PW-1 and during his evidence, few documents were marked exhibit 1 to 4 respectively.  On the other hand, O.P has adduced no evidence. 

                                                                 Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?  

                                                                                                                                               Contd……………….P/3.

                                                       

                                                                                                         ( 3 )

                      

                                                             Decision with reasons

             Point no.1:-

                   Maintainability of this case has not been questioned by any of the parties at the time of final hearing of this case.  On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, we do not find anything to hold that the case is not maintainable.

     This point is therefore decided in the affirmative and in favour of the complainant.                                           

            Point no. 2:-

   It is not denied nor disputed that the complainant insured his newly purchased motor cycle with the O.P.-Insurance Company vide policyno.39010231166202885959 covering the period from 12.10.2016 to 11.10.2017.  From the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence of PW-1, the complainant Prasanta Bairi that on 29.10.2016, he kept his motor cycle in his neighbor’s house and on that night about 2.30 a.m., he heard shouting of his neighbor and found that his vehicle was totally burnt.  It further appears from the evidence of complainant as well as from exbts. 2 & 3 that after the said occurrence, lodged a G.D. entry being no.1278 dated 30.10.2016 at Ghatal P.S. regarding the said occurrence and he also submitted claim form and all necessary documents before the local office of the O.P.-Insurance Company at Chandrakona Road Branch, Paschim Medinipur on 29.11.2016.  O.P.-Insurance Company has not denied submission of claim form and other documents before them. 

     Deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.-Insurance Company has been alleged by the complainant on the ground that even after lapse of 10 months, the O.P.-Insurance Company has neglected to settle his claim of insurance.  From the written version filed by the O.P. we find that the O.P took no step to settle the claim of insurance by taking any positive steps.  They have stated that the complainant produced no document to show that the vehicle was burnt due to any accidental cause although they have stated that there is possibility of mechanical fault which leads to setting fire on the vehicle and it may be also a criminal act of the miscreants who have burnt the vehicle.  It thus appears that the O.P has made contradictory statements by saying that no evidence has been produced to  show that the vehicle was burnt and that by saying there might be any mechanical fault which leads to burning of the vehicle.  Further according to the O.P. the complainant did not file any police investigation report and the report of fire brigade.  In his petition of complaint, the complainant has stated specifically that there was no scope to call fire brigade at the relevant time of accident.  Regarding non-submission of police investigation report, we find that the complainant did his duty by lodging a G.D. entry (Exbt.3) before Ghatal P.S. and if the police did not make any enquiry then question of non-submission of investigation report

                                                                                                                                                                              Contd……………….P/4.                                                    

                                                     ( 4 )

does not arise.  Fact remains undisputed that on 29.11.2016 the complainant submitted claim form and other documents before the branch office of the O.P.  It was the duty of the O.P. to settle the claim of insurance after receiving such claim form and after making necessary investigation by their own surveyor/ investigator.  Here in the present case, we find from the written version of O.P.-Insurance Company that they stated nothing that they took any such step for settlement of the claim of insurance.  This inaction on the part of the O.P.-Insurance Company in not only a sheer negligence but also amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  It is therefore held that the O.P.-Insurance Company has committed deficiency in service by not settling the claim of insurance.

       This point accordingly decided in favour of the complainant.

            Point no. 3:

      In view of our above findings under point no. 2, the complainant is entitled to get reliefs, as prayed for.                      

      All the points are accordingly disposed of.

     In the result, the complaint case succeeds.

                                                    Hence, it is,

                                                 Ordered,

                            that the complaint case no.144/2017  is allowed on contest with cost against the O.P.-Insurance Company.

               O.P.-Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.53,041/- towards the insured declared value of the burnt motor cycle to the complainant  with a further direction to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.

                 All such payments shall be made within one month from this date of order i.d. 8% penal interest p.a. shall carry over the awarded amount.

                            Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

                Dictated and Corrected by me

                       Sd/-B. Pramanik.                       Sd/- S. Sarkar                                 Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                            President                                    Member                                          President

                                                                                                                                  District Forum

                                                                                                                              Paschim Medinipur