Jharkhand

Bokaro

cc/15/120

Krishna Prasad Mahto - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Genearal Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

D.K Mishra

17 Dec 2021

ORDER

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction to O.Ps. to pay insurance claim for Rs. 9,60,000/- and for payment of Rs. 7,20,000/- as loss caused due to non settlement of the claim, Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 10,000/-  as compensation and litigation cost respectively to the complainant.
2.         Complainant’s case in brief is that he purchased Tipper bearing Registration No. JH-09-J-0769 by obtaining loan from O.P. No.2 Magma Finance Co. Ltd. and said vehicle was insured with O.P. No.1 M/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vide Insurance Policy No. 1506992343101559 valid from 02.02.2009 to 01.02.2010 of IDV value Rs. 9,60,000/- for the annual premium of Rs. 11,224/-. Further case is that while said vehicle was parked in front of the house of the complainant on 09.09.2009 some miscreants put that very vehicle on fire causing 100% burn for which Chandrapura P.S. Case No. 93/2009 dated 14.09.2009 was registered and at that very time complainant was under custody in S.T. Case No. 92/2010. Further case is that however, information was given to the Police by brother of the complainant and in that very case final form was submitted by the Police. Further case is that on 22.04.2010 complainant met with the officials of  O.Ps. requesting them to settle the claim, who also received the request letter but claim was not settled. Further case is that the O.P. No.1 insurance co. appointed Surveyor for verification of the damaged vehicle, who submitted report, then also claim was not settled inspite of expiry of six years period, hence Legal Notice was served on both the O.Ps. having no response. In this way it is claimed that there is gross deficiency in service by the O.Ps. Hence case has been filed.
3.         O.P. No.1 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed W.S. challenging the maintainability of the case on the ground of non disclosure of cause of action. Further case is that complaint case is time barred.  Further case as per W.S. is that complainant has not produced any record to show that vehicle was being used for his livelihood nor he produced any paper before this O.P. for any claim. Further case is that this O.P. has issued insurance Policy as mentioned in the complaint petition but there is no information to this O.P. regarding occurrence dt. 09.09.2009 and damage of the vehicle concerned nor any intimation has been given by the brother of the complainant to the insurance co. nor any paper has been submitted for settlement of the claim. Further case is that no any surveyor was deployed for verification of the burnt vehicle rather complainant has made vague, baseless, averments with malafied intention in this way there is no any deficiency in service of the this O.P.
4.          O.P. No.2 Magma Fincorp Ltd. has filed its W.S. mentioning there in that as per terms and conditions of the agreement as mentioned in para 22 of the agreement all disputes, differences, claims etc shall be referred to the Arbitrator. Further all disputes arising out of that very agreement shall be adjudicated by the Court at Kolkata which will have the exclusive jurisdiction to try it, in this way in presence of those clause jurisdiction of this Commission is barred. Further case of O.P. No.2 is that as per terms of the agreement Arbitration proceeding was held and Arbitration Award has been passed in his favour, hence if any order is passed by this Commission in favour of the complainant then first of all Arbitration Award is required to be satisfied.
5.          In support of claim complainant has filed Photo copy of the certified copy of FIR and Final Report of Chandrapura P.S. Case No. 93/2009 dated 14.09.2009,  photo copy of registration certificate of the vehicle concerned, photo copy of the insurance policy of the vehicle concerned, photo copy of unsigned letter dt. 22.04.2010 addressed to The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., photo copy of Legal Notice dt. 31.03.2015, photo copy of certified copy of order dt. 19.08.2013 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1053/2012.
6.         On behalf of O.P. No.1 no any evidence either oral or documentary has been filed.
7.         On behalf of O.P. No.2 Magma Fincorp Ltd. photo copy of Hire Purchase Finance Agreement paper dt. 19.02.2008 and photo copy of Award dt. 01.07.2010 has been filed.
8.      On careful perusal of the pleadings of the parties it appears that fact related to purchase of the Tipper having registration No. JH-09-J-0769 and its insurance policy have been admitted by both the parties. Another admitted fact is that claim of the complainant has not been repudiated by the Insurance Co.
9.         There is denial regarding facts related to 100% damage of the vehicle due to burn. Another fact has been denied in respect to intimation by the informant or on his behalf to the Insurance Co. in respect to concerned occurrence of burning. Another fact in dispute is that the Insurance Co. never deputed any Surveyor in connection with alleged occurrence of burning and damage of the vehicle concerned. It is also challenged this case is time barred and there is no cause of action.
10.          In this way main point for consideration is that (a) Whether case is time barred and there is cause of action for the case ? (b) Whether timely intimation to the Insurance Co. was given for settlement of the claim on which any Survey was conducted or not ? Whether prayer of the complainant is liable to be accepted or not ?
11.          For the sake of convenience all the points are being decided jointly. As per case occurrence of burning was occurred on 09.09.2009. Photo copy of the FIR is disclosing the fact that information to the Police was given on 14.09.2009 but time of occurrence has not been mentioned in the FIR or written report. In this way there is delay in filing of the criminal case. Photo copy of order dt. 19.08.2013 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi in connection with Cr. Appeal (D.B.) 1053/2012 itself shows that complainant has been ordered to be released on bail in connection with S.T. No. 92/2010.  However, no any paper to show that during which period  complainant was under custody in connection with criminal case has been filed. No  photograph of the burnt or damaged vehicle has been brought on record to show the damage by burn to the vehicle concerned to justify the claim. The letter dt. 22.04.2010 addressed to The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. shows that it has not been signed by the complainant or any other person on his behalf. No any paper to show the position of the damaged vehicle and the place of occurrence has been brought on record for the purpose of evidence in this case.
12.         As per complaint petition occurrence of burning occurred on 09.09.2009, alleged intimation about it to the O.P. No.1 was given on 22.04.2010 and this case has been filed on 10.10.2015 after expiry  of  more than 6 years period from the date of alleged occurrence. Though it is alleged by the complainant that on his application Surveyor was deputed by the O.P. No.1 (Insurance Co.) who submitted report but this fact has been denied by the Insurance Co. in his W.S. Hence it was upon the complainant to prove it but it has not been proved that any Survey was conducted by the agency of the Insurance Co. No any copy of any type of report of the Surveyor has been brought on record. No where it has been claimed or proved that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the Insurance Co. (O.P. No.1).
13.          It reveals from the record that vide order dt. 01.04.2016 this case has been admitted but there is no order in respect to condonation of delay in filing the case. As per Provision of Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act. 2019 corresponding to section 24 (A) of Consumer Protection Act. 1986 it is statutory binding on the Commission/Forum to record its reasons for  condonation of delay but order dt. 01.04.2016 is silent on this aspect. Hence we have taken up this point for decision at the time of final disposal of the case.
14.        In light of above discussion we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to disclose the cause of action of the case. The complainant has not shown any reasonable cause for condonation of delay in filing the case after lapse of more than six year period. Therefore, it is apparent that case is hopelessly time barred. Since there is no reliable and believable evidence  regarding approach by the complainant  to the O.P. No.1 for settlement of the claim hence we are of the opinion that without repudiation of the claim by competent Authority this case is not maintainable.
15.       In light of above discussion we are of the opinion that complaint petition is liable to be dismissed, hence it is being dismissed without cost.