BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 3 of 2019
Khairul Hoque Laskar,
Madhurbond P.S- Silchar, …………………………………….. Complainants.
-V/S-
Regional Manager Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd.
B.R Arcade 3rd Floor, 21 Janapath, Opp. Hotel Priya Palace, Ulubari, Guwahati.………….…………………………………………………….… O.P.
Present: - Sri BishnuDebnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Sri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared: - Mr. Ajmal Hussain Laskar, Advocate for the complainant.
Mr. Sasanka Deb, Advocate for the O.P.
Date of evidence 02-07-2019, 16-07-2019
Date of written argument 01-08-2019, 30-08-2019
Date of oral argument 30-09-2019
Date of judgment 15-10-2019
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri BishnuDebnath
1. The Complaint has been brought against the insurance company under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act.1986 for award of compensation including insured value of the vehicle on account of theft of the same.
2. Brief fact:-
The Complainant is the registered owner of Tripper Truck bearing registration No.AS11/BC-9949. The vehicle has been insured with the Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. and obtain Insurance Policy No. 10003/31/18/541222. The period of coverage of risk is from 21/01/2018 to 21/01/2019. However, one Abdul Kadir and Keyanath Altaf Laskar i.e wife of Abdul Kadir took the custody of the said vehicle on agreement with the Complainant for earning profit. It was agreed between the parties that the Complainant will be given monthly profit of earning from that vehicle but the said Abdul Kadir and Keyanath Altaf Laskar did not pay monthly profit to the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant asked Abdul Kadir and Keyanath Laskar to return the vehicle but they did not return it. The Complainant tried his best to locate the vehicle to get back but found it traceless.
3. Finding no alternation, the Complainant lodged FIR against Abdul Kadir Laskar and Keyanath Altaf Laskar for criminal breach of trust. The O/C Silchar P/S registered the Silchar P/S Case No. 774/2018 U/S 406/420/34IPC. Subsequently, the Complainant get the status report of the investigation. As per status Report the vehicle has been sold to one Mizo fellow by Abdul Kadir as stated by Abdul Kadir to police.
4. Hence, considering the case of theft of his vehicle the Complainant brought the instant complaint agreement to the insurance Co. for award as stated above.
5. The Insurance Company in its W/S denied the alleged fact of theft. Rather stated that the Complainant did not inform the alleged fact of theft immediately after commission of alleged theft. Not only that but also stated that as per status report of Police investigation the Complainant sold the vehicle to Abdul. So, the insurance policy does not cover the risk as alleged.
6. During hearing the Complainant submitted his deposition supporting an affidavit including Insurance Policy and status Report. The Insurance Co. also submitted deposition of Sri. Peeyush Jain and exhibited not only Insurance Policy but also produced commercial vehicles package policy rules and regulation vide Ext.B. After closing evidence both sides counsels submitted their written argument.
7. I have heard oral argument, perused written argument and evidence on record. In this case it is admitted fact that the vehicle has been insured with O.P./Insurance Company vide Ext.1, Insurance policy. However, the Complainant stated that the insured vehicle has been given in the custody of Abdul Kadir and Keyanath Altaf Laskar on agreement for earning profit. The agreement is not exhibited. Nevertheless the said fact of agreement is not challenged by the Insurance Co. So, it is concluded in view of evidence on record that the vehicle was in the custody of Abdul Kadir and Keyanath Altaf Laskar at the time of alleged theft.
8. The Complainant took a plea that the vehicle has been stolen away from the custody of Abdul Kadir and Keyanath Altaf Laskar and as such the insurance Company is liable to pay insurance value of the vehicle on the ground of theft. The insurance company denied the alleged theft. So, it is the burden of the Complainant to established the fact of alleged theft of the vehicle.
9. On careful perusal of record, I do not find the date, time and place of theft. The Complainant in his deposition also did not clarify the aforesaid facts regarding date, time and place of theft. Rather he stated that on inquiry when he did not find the vehicle, he presumed it has been stolen away from the custody of Abdul Kadir. In this case Abdul Kadir or Kayanath Altaf Laskar were not examined to established the fact of alleged theft. Rather, the Complainant exhibited a police investigation report in connection with this case No. vide Silchar P/S case No. 774/18.
10. As per that report vide Ext.3 and Ld. CJM’S order, vide Ext.4, Abdul Kadir and Keyanath Altaf Laskar stated to police during investigation that they purchased the vehicle form the Complainant and thereafter sold the vehicle to a Mizo fellow at Aizawl.
11. Thus, as per the above documents, vide Ext.3 & 4 the alleged fact of theft is not established, rather it is indicated that either the vehicle sold to Abdul Kadir and Keyanath Altaf Laskar by the Complainant or hand over physical custody of the vehicle to the above mentioned person on agreement.
12. The Section I of the Ext. B listed the situation or circumstance on which the Insurance Co. is liable to indemnify the insured against loss or damages to the vehicle insured. One of the said situation is theft. But theft is not established in this case. Moreover, Police case No. 774118 indicated that the vehicle has been misappropriate by Abdul Kadir and Keyanath Altaf Laskar but that situation of criminal breach of trust or cheating are not covered from indemnify. Moreover, as per the clause of ‘general exception/ mention in the rules vide Ext.B, the insurance Company is not liable to indemnify any loss arising out of contractual liability of other party of the agreement.
13. In this case, from the evidence on record it is convincing that the vehicle has been given in custody of Abdul Kadir and Keyanath Altaf Laskar for earning profit but said Abdul Kadir & Keyanath Altaf Laskar sold is to Mizo fellow without consent of the Complainant. So, here Abdul Kadir and Keyanath Altaf Laskar committed no offence of theft rather allegedly committed offence of criminal breach of trust which is not covered by the Ext.1 Insurance policy.
14. Thus, the insurance Co. is not found in disservice to the Complainant. For that reason this District Consumer Forum is not inclined to grant any relief to the Complainant. With the above, this case is dismissed on contest.
15. Supply free certificate copy of judgment to the parties. Given under my hand and seal of this District Forum on this the 15th day of October 2019.
