: J U D G M E N T :
The brief fact of the case is that the complainant had purchased one Honda Unicorn model motor cycle having its engine No. KC 09E0069184, chasis No. E4KC 094E58069119 and registration No WB-64B-3406. The complainant obtained an insurance policy being policy certificate No. 354302/31/12/6200002662 for the said vehicle from OP / National Insurance Co. Ltd. which was valid for the period from 09.07.2012 to 08.07.13. The said policy also covered the accidental benefit, theft etc. On 31.08.2012, the said vehicle was stolen away from the garage of the complainant’s quarter and on the very next date i.e., on 01.09.12 the complainant lodged an information to Dhantala P.S. and on the basis of the said information, Dhantala P.S. started one case being Dhantala P.S. case No. 206/2012 dtd. 01.09.12 u/s 379 IPC . Thereafter the complainant submitted claim form in the office of the OP. As per direction of OP/National Insurance Co. Ltd., the complainant submitted all relevant documents on 14.02.2014 in the office of the OP. The same was duly acknowledged by the OP subsequently on 12.12.12 the investigating officer submitted FRT which was duly accepted by Ld. A.C.J.M. Ranaghat. OP did not take any care for payment of reasonable claim amount to the complainant even after several requests from the end of complainant. Finding no other alternative, the complainant approached before the Forum for getting his relief as prayed for.
The OP contested this case by filing written version stating, inter alia, that the complainant was the owner of motor cycle and the said vehicle was insured with OP/National Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period from 09.07.12 to 08.07.13. The complainant lodged a claim on 07.12.13 in the office of OP stating the theft of motor cycle. The said motor cycle was stolen on 31.08.12 and the claim was lodged on 07.12.12 i.e., after 3 months from the date of theft. OP appointed a surveyor / investigator. He submitted a report after investigation. After considering his report, OP repudiated the said claim on the ground of delay of filing of claim form in the office of OP and the matter has been informed to the complainant by sending a letter through speed post, at his address which was mentioned in the said policy. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP. So the complaint/petition is liable to be dismissed/rejected with cost.
Now the Forum is to consider the following:-
- Whether the complainant is to be treated as consumer or not as per
Consumer Protection Act 1986.
- Whether there is any gross negligence or deficiency in service on the
part of OPs or not,
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No. 1:
We have perused the complaint, written version, written argument along with all documents filed by both parties.
In written version the opposite party/Insurance Company admitted that the vehicle being No. WB-64B-3406 was insured with the opposite party and the policy being No. 354302/31/12/6200002662 for the period from 09.07.2012 to 08.07.13 was issued in favour of Dr. Rohan Halder, complainant in the instant case. The complainant has obtained the aforesaid policy by paying the consideration amount i.e., amount of premium. So as per status of complainant and OP/ Insurance Company, the complainant comes within the definition of ‘consumer’ as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So point No. 1 is thus decided as per above observation.
Point Nos. 2 & 3
It is admitted that the complainant has obtained an insurance policy being No. 354302/31/12/6200002662 for the period from 09.07.2012 to 08.07.13 from OP / Insurance Company for the purpose of covering insurance of vehicle being No. WB-64B-3406 after payment of necessary premium amount. It is also fact that the said vehicle was stolen by some unknown miscreants from doctor’s Hospital quarter garage within 11/30 pm of 31.08.2012 to 5 am of 01.09.2012 after breaking of lock of said vehicle. After receiving the complaint ASI Dhantala P.S. started investigation on the basis of FIR being No. 206/12 dtd. 01.09.12 lodged by complainant in Dhantala P.S., Dist. Nadia. After investigation, ASI Dhantala P.S. submitted F.R.T. vide Dhantala P.S. FRT No. 352/12 dtd. 09.12.12 u/S 379 of IPC.
So from above analysis, it is clear that the theft has been occurred within night of 31.08.12 and 5 am of 01.09.12 and without any further delay the complainant informed the matter in the police station forthwith and lodged FIR being No. 206/12 on 01.09.12. On the basis of FIR police started investigation and submitted F.R.T. i.e, Final report. Ld. Counsel for OP has cited a case law III (2003) CPJ 77 (NC) wherein the Hon'ble National Commission held that repudiation of claim is justified as the theft of vehicle has been reported to police after 4 days and to Insurance Company after about a month.
It is fact that as per terms and conditions of the policy the complainant informed the event of theft forthwith to the police. The OP only argued that there was a delay of 3 months from the date of theft regarding intimation to the office of Insurance Company. As per our view mere delay in intimation is not good ground for repudiation because the proper authority, i.e., police has already investigated the said matter and submitted report. It is fact that there was no single day of delay regarding intimation to the police authority. The main object of enquiry / investigation is to search the stolen article forthwith by any concerned authority for recovery of said article which has already been done by the fittest authority i.e., the police concerned. Moreover, as per final report it is admitted that the event of theft is very genuine one. Insurance is a contract between the both parties and it is based upon the principles of uberrimae fidei. So the position of law is that the insurer takes the risk subject to payment of amount of premium from the end of insured. In the said case the complainant obtained insurance for vehicle from OP by paying the premium amount. It is also fact that the theft was occurred within the policy period. So as per terms and conditions of the policy it should be the duty of OP to take risk but unfortunately avoiding the proper settlement between the parties, OP has repudiated the said claim causing gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP Insurance Company. The complainant is entitled to get relief against the OP Insurance Company as there is no latches or fault on the part of the complainant.
No policy certificate was filed by any party. The Ld. Advocate for complainant argued that the original certificate has already been filed in the office of OP / Insurance Company. So at present it is in the custody of OP/Insurance Company.
Complainant stated in the complaint that the cost of motor cycle was Rs.50,000/- which was not challenged by OP/Insurance Company. Generally the IDV of motor cycle is mentioned in the policy certificate. But in absence of said policy certificate it is presumed that the cost of vehicle was Rs.50,000/- stated in the plaint. The said motor cycle was registered on 08.08.05 and it was stolen on 01.09.12. So it is clear that the motor cycle was approx 7 years old. So the depreciation should be calculated. The depreciation of 10% p.a. shall be charged upon the value of motor cycle for the period of 7 years which comes to Rs.3500/-. So the value of motor cycle comes to Rs.50,000/- - Rs.3500/- = Rs.46,500/- after charging the depreciation. As per terms and condition of the policy it is the duty of OP/Insurance Company to pay Rs. 46,500/- to the complainant. The case is allowed on contest against OP/Insurance Company. Point Nos. 2 & 3 are thus decided.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case No. CC/2014/116 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP/Insurance Company with cost of Rs. 500/-. That the OP/Insurance Company is hereby directed to pay Rs. 46,500/- plus cost of Rs. 500/-, i.e., total of Rs. 47,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order, i.d., interest of 10% p.a. shall be charged upon the awarded amount till full realization.
Let the copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
