West Bengal

Uttar Dinajpur

CC/13/95

Gobinda Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Biswajit Sinha

23 Dec 2014

ORDER

Before the Honorable
Uttar Dinajpur Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Super Market Complex, Block 1 , 1st Floor.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/13/95
 
1. Gobinda Das
S/O - Suresh Chandra Das,Indarn, Itahar,
Uttar Dinajpur
West Bengal
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. National Insurance Company Limited
Represented by its Branch Manager, Mahanbati, Raiganj,
Uttar Dinajpur
West Bengal
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONORABLE Asoke Kumar Mandal PRESIDENT
 HONORABLE Pulak Kumar Singha Member
 HONORABLE Swapna Kar Member
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

                                                                              F I N A L   O R D E R

 

This is a complaint U/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 with the prayer for an order directing the O.P. to pay Rs.49,000/-, to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation, Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost and other reliefs to the complainant.

 

The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant was the owner of a Bike being Registration No.WB-60D/6298 and the same was issued under the O.P. vide policy No.313501/31/2012/426 valid from 15.10.2012 to 14.10.2013, sum assured of Rs.26730/-. During the insurance coverage period on 10.02.2013 at about 05:00 p.m. the brother of the complainant parked the said Bike with lock and key and went to the ticket counter and after purchasing railway ticket he saw that the said bike was not there. Thereafter his brother searched everywhere but unable to trace out the same. So, he lodged complaint before the local P.S. and informed to the Insurance Company and submitted claim before the O.P. on 11.02.2013 regarding this theft. But without any reason the O.P. did not settle his claim. So, finding no other alternative complainant filed this complaint before this Forum to get proper relief.

 

On the other hand, the O.P. by filing W.V. has contested this case denying all the material allegations against him made by the O.P. rather contended that the case is not maintainable in its present form and law.

 

It’s specific case is that the complainant did not informed the above matter within the stipulated period (within 48 hours of the said occurrence) and did not submit any document for getting his claim after the said incident. So, the O.P. prays for dismissal of the petition of the complaint with cost.

 

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

 

To establish the case the complainant has relied upon an affidavit-in-chief sworn by him and relied upon some photocopies of documents filed in this case which have not been challenged by the O.P./insurer by adducing any evidence.

 

We carefully peruse the contents of the petition of complaint, W.V., documentary evidences on record and consider the arguments advanced by the Ld. Lawyers for both the parties.

 

It is admitted that the complainant being the  owner of the vehicle being No. WB-60D/6298 has a motor insurance policy, value of Rs.26,730/-. of the National Insurance Company Limited.

 

It is proved from the documents, photocopies of the FIR and FRT that the said vehicle has stolen by unknown miscreants on 10.02.2013 at about 05:00 p.m. The photocopy of the insurance policy filed by the complainant shows that the said theft was occurred during the insurance coverage and the letter dated 11.02.2013 issued by the complainant to the O.P. shows that the complainant informed the matter to the O.P. within the stipulated period (48 hours) of the said occurrence.

 

The O.P. has alleged that the complainant did not furnish the policy particulars along with the claim petition as per their policy conditions after occurrence. So, the O.P. was unable to settle the claim of the complainant. But this allegation of the O.P. should be ignorable as because he did not file any such document which proves his above allegation for non-settlement of the complainant’s claim. Even, the Record shows that this Forum by passing a specific order on 03.09.2014 made a direction to the O.P. to produce the copy of the insurance policy of the complainant before this Forum. But the O.P.  neglected to comply that direction of this Forum. Moreover, the O.P. did not settle the complainant’s claim even after receiving the notice of this case.

 

So, it is clear from the above discussion that there is negligence on the part of the O.P. and in this case all the papers submitted by the complainant are sufficient to make a favourable order in his favour.

 

Thus the case succeeds.

 

Fees paid is correct.

 

Hence, it is

ORDERED

 

that the complaint case being No. CC-95/2013 is allowed on contest against the O.P. without cost.

 

that the complainant do get an award directing the O.P./insurer to pay Rs.26,730/- as sum assured as mentioned in the insurance policy, Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost,  to the complainant within one month from the date of passing of this order failing which the total awarded amount of Rs. 33,730/- (Rupees Thirty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty) only will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till the date of full realization of the same and  the complainant will be at liberty to put this order in execution in accordance with law.  

 

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

 
 
[HONORABLE Asoke Kumar Mandal]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONORABLE Pulak Kumar Singha]
Member
 
[HONORABLE Swapna Kar]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.