In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.143 / 2010 .
1) Harun Molya @ Harun Molla,
Of: Atghara, P.O. Rajarhat – Gopalpur,
P.S. Rajarhat, Dist. 24 Parganas (North), Kolkata-59 ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Himalaya House, 5th Floor,
38B, Jawahar Lal Nehru Road,
P.S. Moidan, Kolkata-71.
2) Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Regd. Office: Reliance Centre, 19, Walchand
Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038.
3) Surya Claims Bureau Ltd.
NPS Chambers, 7A, K.S. Roy Road,
P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata-1. ---------- Opposite Parties.
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 24 Dated 31-12-2012.
The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Harun Molya @ Harun Molla against the o.ps. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased a motor car being no.WB 02U 1275 from another person. So, it is clear from the above mentioned contention that the said motor car was purchased on second hand condition from a person. The said vehicle was numbered as WB-02-V1275, engine no.713510, chassis no.923699 in the policy paper and the said car was made by Tata. The car was modeled as Sumo Victa. It is also mentioned here that the policy no. is shown in the policy paper as 1506372311101734 and it is also stated in the policy paper that the declared value of the said insurance is Rs.2,70,000/-. On 30th day of the o.ps. has issued a certificate of insurance to the present complainant. it is also mentioned here that in that certificate the name of the policyholder is clearly seen that it is Harun Molya and it is also mentioned here that all the particulars of the above mentioned car are as similar as the present policyholder / complainant. all the detail of the policy is more clearly stated in the said certificate of insurance. The contention of this paragraph is very much evidence.
The said car which is also one of the subject matter of this case, was stolen on some time in the night on 24.10.07. Complainant went to Rajarhat P.S. on 26.10.07. It is also a fact that the complainant has also filed and/or submit a written complaint and/or and FIR to the O.C. Rajarhat.
O.ps. have sent a letter to the complainant informing him that his vehicle theft claim which is under process of settlement, is pending with them for non availability of some documents.
As per the condition of the said letter of the complainant always informed the o.ps. regarding the investigation of the concern policy authority. Complainant repeatedly claimd to the o.ps. to give him the insured sum as per the terms and conditions of the insurance agreement but all the time the o.ps. ignored and/or tactfully delayed to consider the said claim of the complainant. Ld. advocate of the complainant has sent another letter requesting the o.ps. to meet the above mentioned claim of the complainant. But unfortunately, the o.ps. have taken a dilatory tactics to meet the claim of the complainant. It is also a fact that the o.ps. have not paid any heed to meet and or pay the claim of the complainant till today. Hence the case was filed by complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.p. nos.1 and 2 had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. O.p. no.3 did not appear and contest the case by filing w/v and matter was heard ex parte against o.p. no.3.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. Complainant purchased a motor car bearing no.WB 02U 1275 and the same was purchased on second hand condition from a person and the said vehicle was subsequently numbered as WB 02V 1275, engine no.713510, chassis no.923699 in the policy paper and the said car was made by Tata and it was Sumo Victa and policy number mentioned in the policy was shown 1506372311101734 and it is also stated in the said policy paper that the declared value of the said insurance was Rs.2,70,000/- and subsequently the car was stolen on 24.10.07 and complainant lodged complaint with Rajarhat P.S. on 26.10.07. Complainant filed claim form to o.ps. on 29.10.07 after observing all the formalities and o.ps. sending letter to the complainant asked for filing certain documents for production by the complainant to the o.ps. and complainant did the same and also about the progress of the investigation by police and despite repeated requests by complainant, o.ps. did not pay the claim sum. Complainant sent a letter dt.27.11.09 to the o.ps. through ld. lawyer for settlement of the claim but o.ps. did not pay heed to that.
It is an admitted position that complainant’s vehicle was covered under insurance policy of o.ps. and complainant was not a defaulter and despite the same o.ps. did not settle the claim and this act on the part of o.ps. amounts to deficiency in service being service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against o.p. nos.1 and 2 and ex parte with cost against o.p. no.3. All the o.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,62,000/- (Rupees one lakh sixty two thousand) only on the basis of non standard deduction and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
