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.47/2010.
1) Bee Pee Jay Finance Ltd.
Annapurna Apartment, Suit No.7F,
68, Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata-19. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Himalaya House, 8th Floor,
38B, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata-71, P.S. Park Street. ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Order No. 29 Dated 03-09-2013.
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that the complainant is engaged in business of hiring motor vehicle of different makes and models including motor cycles to different individuals. Such vehicles / motor cycles are being put to hire through different auto dealers scattered through out the state of West Bengal.
Employees / collectors carry cash money regularly from the office of the respective auto dealers to the office of the complainant which task involve high risk and for the reason as aforesaid the complainant took an infidelity insurance policy on 19.11.08 under policy no.150178261100712 having coverage against 10 employees of the complainant.
Endorsement of the terms and conditions in respect of infidelity / dishonesty of employee will appear from Section X of the Operative Clauses of the policy issued by the company to the insured. The names of the said 10 employees of the insured will appear from the policy issued by the o.p. which is part of the said insurance policy.
During the period between 2008 and 2009 that is during the insurance period out of the said 10 employees 4 employees / collectors namely (1) Buddha Dev Das, (2) Subhas Maity, (3) Surojit Roy and (4) Jyotirmoy Kundu duly collected monthly instalments of the hire charges under different auto dealers which sums were paid by different hirers of the complainant but did not deposit / accounted for with the insured / complainant.
The offence of infidelity / dishonesty committed by the said four employees will appear from the particulars:
JYOTIRMOY KUNDU
A/C. P.A. Enterprises Rs.11,619.00
A/C. G.N. Automobiles Rs. 7,000.00
A/C. Prince Auto Rs. 7,000.00 25,619.00
SUROJIT ROY
A/C. P.A. Enterprises Rs. 9,386.00
A/C. Tamluk Automobiles Rs. 1,650.00
A/C. Prince Auto Rs. 17,086.00 28,122.00
SUBHAS MAITY
A/C. P.A. Enterprises Rs. 8,200.00 .
A/C. Tamluk Automobiles Rs.111,409.00
A/C. Prince Auto Rs. 77 .00 1,19,677.00
BUDDHA DEV DAS
A/C. G.N. Automobiles Rs. 7,830.00
A/C. Prince Auto Rs. 3,420.00 11,250.00
Rs.1,84,668.00
Upon receipt of the said letter dt.24.4.09 the o.p. appointed one Mr. Goutam Majumder for investigating the case on behalf of the o.p. but said Mr. Majumder handled the case in unusual manner to put the complainant in trouble instead of handling the investigation prudently. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said surveyor the complainant through their letter dt.14.5.09 protested against the unusual practice of the said surveyor.
Subsequently, as required by the o.p., the complainant through their letter dt.3.6.09 submitted document in support of the claim of complainant in part explaining the reason of delay in submitting the final claim.
The claimant through their ld. advocate Sri Asim Kr. Mukherjee recorded the affairs of the case and applied for extension of time for 60 days to submit the final claim of the complainant through the letter dt.12.6.09.complainant through their advocate Sri Asim Kr. Mukherjee replied to the said letter of the o.p. through their advocate’s letter dt.17.9.09 denying the claim of the o.p. and requesting not to close the file and issuance of the necessary claim form.
In spite of the several reminders / notices the o.p. failed and neglected either to issue necessary claim form or to make payment of the claim of the complainant in terms of the aforesaid insurance policy.
Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.p. had entered its 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.p. 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 findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record we find that o.p. had sufficient 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 the o.p. O.p. is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,84,668/- (Rupees one lakh eighty four thousand six hundred sixty eight) only towards the claim of the complainant and is further directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only as compensation 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.
