: J U D G M E N T :
The petitioner, Ripon Sarkar has filed the instant case against, the opposite party Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Krishnagar, Nadia under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Case of the petitioner in brief:-
The petitioner had a TVS Apache motor cycle (being No. WB 52E 4468) which was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd., Krishnagar Nadia vide policy No. 154001/31/09/6200001135 from 15.05.09 to 14.05.10 with a insured declared value of Rs.35,000/-. The vehicle was taken away by some miscreants from the petitioner’s place on 11.07.09 and over the said incident, Nakashipara P.S. started a case vide Nakashipara P.S. case No. 345/2009 dtd. 01.08.09. The OP was informed about the theft by the petitioner and was also requested to take necessary steps. The OP appointed an investigator and that person also investigated the matter. The R.T.O. Nadia was also informed about the theft by the petitioner. The claim was not settled by the OP till 09.09.11 and so the petitioner against submitted all the relevant documents to the office of the OP. After that the petitioner went to the OPs office several times and requested them to settle his claim but the OP did not settle the claim till 13.12.14 when the petitioner last visited the OP’s office. This indifferent behavior of the OP has compelled the petitioner to file the present case before the Forum. The petitioner has prayed for the following directions upon the OP.
- Refund of the IDV of Rs. 35,000/- along with 12% interest from the date of theft i.e., 11.07.2019.
- Payment of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony of the petitioner along with litigation cost.
OP has contested the case by filing written version. OP denied most of the allegations made by the petitioner save and except the fact that an insurance policy was issued by them for the alleged motor cycle bearing No. WB – 52E 4468 subject to the terms, conditions, limitations and exceptions to the policy. The OP also submits that the petitioner informed the incident of theft beyond the period of limitation and in spite of that OP Insurance Company issued a letter on 16.11.13 asking the petitioner to submit all the relevant documents but the same remain unattended by the petition. So the OP claims that he has got no laches as the claim could not be settle due to nonreceipt of the papers from the petitioner’s end.
On the basis of the pleadings, written version, documents and evidences filed by the OP we frame the following issues for proper adjudication of the case.
1) Whether the petitioner a consumer under the OP?
2) Whether the OP suffers from deficiency in service?
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get relief from the OPs as prayed for
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
Point No. 1.
The petitioner is a consumer under OP 1, as he has paid premium for getting an insurance policy for the alleged motor cycle.
Point Nos. 2 & 3
After going through the records the Forum holds the same opinion with the OP that the claim was submitted beyond the limitation period but at the same time it is also true that the petitioner lodged an FIR with the Nakashipara P.S. and the chargesheet was also issued by the police authority on 08.07.2011 which establishes the incident of theft. Now, when the OP Insurance Company, received the claim papers on 09.09.11 what prompted them to seek idle for a long period of two years two months with the papers in hand and suddenly asking for additional documents from the petitioner on 16.11.2013? It can be construed from the behavior of the OP that they were willing to settle the claim but they were at all not prompt in their action otherwise they would have either repudiated the claim or settle the claim.
Hence, the Forum holds the view that the OP is deficient in their service for negligently dealing with the particular claim which is much words than filing a genuine claim by a customer / consumer beyond the limitation period. But it is also held by the Forum that since the petitioner is negligent in his duty by not filing the papers in proper time he cannot expect any relief from the OP towards compensation and litigation cost but can only get the IDV as per policy norms.
IPO paid is correct.
Hence,
Ordered,
That, the case CC/2014/159 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP without cost. The OP is directed to pay Rs. 25,515/- (Rs. 35,000/- less depreciation @ 10% for three years) as IDV within one month from the date of order, in default, the amount will carry an interest of @ 9% pa from the date of theft i.e., 11.07.09 till final payment.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
