In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.307/2010.
1) Mr. Manab Bandhu Mondal,
P.O. Tejpur, P.S. Nandigram, Narshinghapur No.2,
` Dist. Purba Medinipur, Pin-721631. ---------- 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) The Branch Manager,
Induslnd Bank Ltd., Nimtola More, Tamluk,
Dist. Purba Medinipur, Pin-721636. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 25 Dated 21-08-2013.
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant is an unemployed person and therefore for the purpose of earning his and his family members livelihood carrying on business of goods transportation by way of self employment.
Complainant purchased one chassis goods carrying vehicle (10 wheels) of Tata Motors for total cost price of Rs.10,29,608/- on 30.11.05. For the purpose of such purchase complainant also obtained financial help of Rs.10 lakhs from the Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. which has been subsequently taken over by the proforma o.p. for the purpose of body building of the truck complainant further expensed an amount of Rs.2 lakh. Complainant’s goods carrying vehicle has been properly registered before the registering authority being no.WB-2970-19.
Complainant to secure the safety and security of the vehicle obtained one insurance policy from Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. on payment of premium which has been subsequently renewed time to time and last policy under which the claim arose was policy no.1506782334004328 valid for the period from 19.12.08 to 18.12.09, sum insured for Rs.8,40,000/-.
During the policy period the said vehicle has been theft during the night of 26.8.09 when the said vehicle has been parked in front of the house of the driver viz. Susamoy Dey and near the Terapekhia Bus Stand at village – Keshabpur, Jalpai, Block-Mahishadal, P.S. Mahishadal at about 22-00 hours when the driver parked the vehicle in front of his house and when he came back at about 5-00 hours in the morning he found that the vehicle has been stolen from the said place and immediately the said driver intimated the incident to the complainant. Complainant after receiving such intimation from the said driver immediately lodged one complaint before the Mahishadal P.S. on 27.8.09 at about 11-05 hours, which has been treated as FIR being no. Mahishadal P.S. case no.1111/2009 u/s 379 of IPC anfd FRT is on road u/s. 379 IPC.
Complainant immediately intimated the said incident to the insurance company through their toll free number on 28.8.09 and also on 6.9.09 being claim no.2091204315 but as they subsequently demanded written intimation complainant intimated the insurance company on 8.9.09 after receiving all the duplicate documents relate to the vehicle from the concern authority.
Insurance company thereafter appointed their surveyor viz. Sri Ajoy Prasad for necessary inspection and assessment of the loss. The said surveyor inspected the spot on 10.9.09 and thereafter did not turn up. The surveyor did not demand any information from the complainant neither he demanded any documents relating to the vehicle and claim. Without considering the said explanation letter the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant through their letter dt.6.7.10. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
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. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with reasons:
In view of the above findings and on perusal of the entire materials on record we find that o.ps. had deficiency in service as the repudiation vide letter dt.6.7.10 is not justified. Complainant has not submitted sufficient vouchers and/or documents towards expenses. However, prayer of the complainant deserves consideration on non standard basis. We have also relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed 2008 CTJ 680 (Supreme Court) (CP) and judgement of Hon’ble National Commission passed in 2012(2) CPR 491 (NC).
In view of the findings above we hold that o.ps. had deficiency service being service provider to their consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) only (on non standard basis) and is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty 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 @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
