In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 329/2010
1) Md. Yusub Ali Faqir alias Ichup Ali Faqir,
Vill – Gobindapur, P.S. Bhangur,
Dist. 24 Parganas (South). ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Himalaya House (5th Floor), 38-B J.L. Nehru Road,
Kolkata-71, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani.
2) ICICI Bank Ltd.
3A, Lindsay Road, Kolkata-19. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 22 Dated 24/12/2012.
The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Md. Yusub Ali Faqir against the o.ps. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and another. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased one light goods vehicle manufactured by Tata Motors in the year 2005, regn. no. of which is WB-03B/6817, taking loan from o.p. no.2. The vehicle of the complainant was hypothecated with o.p. no.2 and the vehicle was covered by policy of insurance issued by o.p. no.1 being policy no.1501172334692592, valid from 21.2.08 to 20.2.09.
On 17.1.09 at about 12-30 a.m. the driver of the vehicle of the complainant Md. Rafique Molla while going from Ghatak Pukur Bazar ato Musid Abad stop the vehicle near Dhalar More and both the driver and the khalashi went for natures call in the nearby field keeping the vehicle standing on the road side and when they returned to the place where the vehicle was kept, they found that the vehicle was not there. At once the driver and the khalashi informed the matter to the complainant and complainant thereafter lodged a written complaint before Barasat P.S. reporting the incident and the said complaint was treated as FIR and registered as Barasat P.S. F.I.R. No.52 of 2009 dt.17.1.09 u/s 379 IPC. Barasat P.S. authority even after their best effort could not trace out the vehicle and submitted final report being Final Report No.93/09 dt.15.7.09.
Complainant also informed the matter to the insurer of the vehicle, o.p. no.1 regarding theft of his vehicle and also lodged a claim of Rs.3,50,000/- before the o.p. no.1. submitted dully filled up claim form. O.p. no.1 appointed M/s. Associated Claims Bureau Ltd. for verification of documents and M/s. Associated Claims Bureau Ltd. by their letter dt.17.3.09 asked the complainant to produce some documents and complainant sent the documents to them. Complainant repaid the entire loan amount along with interest to o.p. no.2. Complainant received a letter dt.12.8.09 from o.p. no.1 by which the claim of complainant was repudiated. Complainant thereafter sent letter dt.6.1.10 to o.p. no.1 asking them to return all the original documents which were submitted to them as per their demand but o.p. no.1 failed to return the same. Hence the case was filed by complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
Both o.ps. 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.
Decision with reasons:-
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that the incident of alleged theft was committed on 17.1.09 and intimation to o.p. no.1 was given by complainant on 6.3.09, almost after lapse of 50 days. That apart, from the record we further find that the key of the vehicle in question was lying in the vehicle when the driver and khalashi of the vehicle in question had been to attend nature’s call and this position has been seen also from the written version of o.p. no.1. On perusal of the record we further find that the insurance company o.p. no.1 repudiated the claim on 12.8.09 for non production of sufficient documents etc. as well as for not taking proper care for the benefit of the insurer and we find clear lapse on the part of complainant in the matter of loss of vehicle. Here we refer judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in R.P. No.3900/11, 2004 Vol-VIII SCC 644 which has been referred in R.P. Case No.3900/11 by Hon’ble National Commission as well as 2003 Vol-III CPJ 77 and Hon’ble National Commission’s decision in R.P. No.1362/11 and R.P. No.3840/11 of the Hon’ble National Commission and on perusal of the said decisions as well as on perusal of the materials on record we do not find anything wrong in the matter of repudiation of the claim of the complainant and we hold that the complainant is not entitled to relief in the context of the facts and circumstances disclosed on record.
Hence, ordered,
That the instant case stands dismissed on contest without cost against both o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
