IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC-147/2014 .
Date of Filing: 14.11.2014. Date of Final Order: 17.08.2015.
Complainant: Ashes Deyasi, Office of Assistant Director of Agriculture, Block-Farakka,
P.S. Farakka, P.O. Beniagram, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742212.
Vs
Opposite Party: 1. Proprietor- Farakka Motors, Vill& P.O. Nabarun NTPC More, P.S. Farakka,
Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742236.
2. Proprietor- Berhampur Motorcycle, Panchanantala, Jalangi Road, Banjetia,
P.O.&P.S. Berhampur, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742102.
3. Senior Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd,
3/20/A, K.K. Banerjee Road(1st floor), P.O.& P.S. Berhampor, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin Code- 742101.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ………………….President.
Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.
Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya- Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for insurance claim of Rs.70,167/- plus compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.4500/-.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the TVS Motor cycle registration No. WB-X-4491 was purchased by the complaint on 07.09.2012 from the OP No.1 and the same was stolen on 01.5.13 in front of Mohanlal Sain Shop, Dhuliyan , Murshidabad. Thereafter, the complainant lodged FIR and informed the incident to OP-Insurance Company and applied for insurance claim but in vain. Then, the complainant has filed this case. Hence, the instant complaint case.
The W/V filed by the OP No.3 -Insurance Company, in brief, is that the complainant shall have to register the vehicle before the R.T.O. within 7 days from the date of taking delivery. But the Motorcycle remains un-registered since 17.04.2013. The policy has been taken on 10.04.2013, vehicle was registered on 18.04.2013. This Opposite Party by a letter dt. 03.07.2014 asked for some clarification from the petitioner, but got no reply. The claim is baseless. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the instant written Version.
Written version filed by the OP Nos. 1 & 2 separately. Regarding insurance claim for theft of insured motorcycle of the complainant, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 are not liable. OP No.3 is only liable and for that they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them.
Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points have been framed for the disposal of the case.
Points for decision
- Whether the complaint is maintainable in law and fact?
- Whether there is any cause of action to the present case?
- Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
- Whether t he complaint is barred by law of limitation or not.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled to get.
Decision with reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 6.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The complainant has prayed for insurance claim of Rs.70, 167/- plus compensation of Rs.25, 000/- and cost of Rs.450/- for the theft of insured motorcycle of the complainant.
On the other hand, the OP’s case ,in brief, is that the complainant take delivery of the motorcycle on 7.9.2012 against cash payment of Rs.72,790/- and had taken insurance policy on 10.4.13 and the motorcycle was registered on 18.04.2013. Motor Vehicle Act does not permit such unregistered condition of the vehicle and asked for explanation as to delay in taking policy after delivery but ht complainant has not given any reply. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
To prove the case the complainant has adduced evidence on affidavit and also adduced relevant documents in support of his case.
The complaint’s case is theft of his insured motor only.
He has filed insurance policy in respect of the stolen motor cycle of the complainant where engine No. is OE4DC2361241.
He has filed cash receipt of Farakka Motors showing payment of cash of Rs.72, 790/- for purchasing of his said motorcycle. He has filed tax token showing registration of his said vehicle and the FIR and FRT and claim application before the OP-Insurance Co for theft of his insured motor cycle.
On the other hand, the OP-Insurance Co. has filed a letter of the OP-Insurance Co. dt. 03.07.14 addressed to complainant asking reply regarding the reasons for non-registration of the vehicle for a long period and delay in making the policy.
The policy was taken on 10,.4.2013 and the vehicle was registered on 8.4.2013 and theft of impugned motorcycle was committed on 01.05.13. The above dates are not disputed.
During hearing argument the ld. lawyer for the OP Insurance Co has not advanced any argument challenging the theft of the impugned Motorcycle of the complainant as well as the documents, FIR and FRT regarding theft of the impugned motorcycle filed by the complainant.
He has advanced argument for non-registration of the vehicle.
In this regard the complainant himself has advanced argument that at the time of purchasing the vehicle he filed all the documents for registration and for making policy with the OP-Company and delay was caused at their end.
Be that as it may, the ld. lawyer for the OP-Insurance Co. has not referred to any reported decision or any specific provision of law to justify the ground of repudiation and making policy after taking delivery of the vehicle.
Where, it is clear that after the time of theft of vehicle the vehicle in question had valid registration and Insurance Policy and as such he is entitled to get relief.
Further, in this regard in the reported decision in 2015(2) CPR-219(NC) in National Insurance Co. Vs. RamDiya , it has been held that Insurance claim cannot be repudiated in event of any single violation of prove of M.V. Act.
Replying upon the aforesaid reported decision and also considering the above discussions as a whole we can safely conclude that all these points are disposed of in favour of the complainant as the complainant is entitled to get relief.
In this case the complainant has claimed both interest and compensation.
In this regard in the reported decision in II(2006)-CPJ-339(NC) , it has been held that since interest is allowed there was no justification for separately awarding Rs.20,000/- by way of compensation towards mental agony.
Relying upon this reported decision in this case for realization of insurance claim for theft of insured motorcycle we can safely conclude that the complainant will get only interest @9% p.a. on the insured claim of Rs.70, 167/- from the date of theft i.e 01.05.13 till the date of realization from the OP No.3 and the complainant will not get any compensation.
Also , considering the above materials on record as discussed above, we can safely conclude that the OP Nos. 1 & 2 are not liable to pay the claim amount of the complainant as prayed for. As as such the complaint be dismissed against them.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 147/2014 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest in part against the OP No.3. and dismissed on contest against the OP Nos. 1 & 2.
OP No.3 –Insurance Co. is directed to pay Rs.70,167/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of theft i.e 01.05.13 till the date of realization within 60 days from the date of this order, failing which the OP No3 is to pay fine@ Rs. 50/- per day’s delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account .
The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation.
There will be no order as to cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
Member Member President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum. Redressal Forum. Redressal Forum.
Murshidabad. Murshidabad. Murshidabad.
