West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/36/2012

Narayan Bhowmick - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

28 Jan 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.36/2012                                                         Date of disposal: 28/01/2014                              

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr.Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr.T.K. Roy. Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. A. Chakraborty Advocate.

          

Narayan Bhowmick, S/O Bishnupada Bhowmick, Residing of Bishnupur, Radhamohanpur, P.O. Mathbishnupur, P.S- Debra, District. Paschim Medinipur… …………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

  Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

1. Atwal Real Estate, Atwal tower, Inda., O.T. Road,  Kharagpur, W.B. 721305.
2. Himalaya house (5^th floor) 38 B., J.L. Neheru Road, Kolkata  700071.
3. Magma Fin. Corp. Ltd., Regd. Office at Magma House, 24 Park Street, Kolkata 700016………………Opposite party.

 

                      The case of the complainant Sri Narayan Bhowmick, in short, is that he used a    vehicle being truck bearing its registration No.WB-33/8216 was damaged due to brunt             caused by some miscreants .  All the documents were also lost in that occurrence.  The vehicle was only property for his livelihood.  A M.P Case No.500/2009 is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur.  That apart the petitioner moved before the Op Insurance Company for insurance claim but there was no result from there end.  Ultimately, the allegation of deficiency of service is raised by the complainant in presentation of this case before this Forum with a prayer for compensation to the amount of Rs.500000/- (Five lakhs) only.

             The Op Insurance Company contested the case by filing written objection stating therein that  no deficiency of service taken place at the instance of the complainant and as such the present case is not maintainable.  The case of damage of the vehicle as stated is totally false.  Moreover, the date of occurrence causing damage of the vehicle is not covered by the Insurance Policy.   

                                                                                                                                                                           Contd………………..P/2

                                                                 

- ( 2 )-

 

 No documents are also available relating to the alleged claim of the complainant.  In this connection, the case No.106/10 previously filed by the present complainant was dismissed for default.  Thus, the Op claims for rejection of this case with cost.

                Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision.

Issues:-

1. Whether  the case is maintainable in this present form?
2. Whether the complainant has any cause of action for claiming insurance benefit from the Op Insurance Company?
3. If the vehicle in question got damaged due to burn within the valid period of Insurance Policy?
4. Whether there is any deficiency of service against the Op Insurance Company?
5. If the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

Issues Nos.1 to 5

               All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other.  Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the complainant’s vehicle bearing its registration No.WB-33/8216 got highly damaged due to fire on 27/10/2009 and immediately the accidental claim has been filed before the Op Insurance Company.  A police case has also been started.  It was pointed out by the Ld. Advocate that till date the Op Insurance Company has not taken any positive steps in favour of the complainant.  But the Ld. Advocate disclosed in his argument that delay of filing the present case was due to criminal prosecution pending before the C.J.M Medinipur.

              Ld. Advocate appearing for the Op Insurance Company in reply suggested that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Insurance Company since no relevant documents are available before them.  Admittedly a similar case filed before this Forum has already been dismissed.  Upon the criminal proceeding it cannot be understood that there was an incident of burn case caused by some unknown miscreants and in the said occurrence the vehicle in question owned by the complainant might have been damaged.  But it is the essential duty of the Insurance Company to assess the degree, quantum and extent of the alleged damage took place in respect of the said vehicle.  Unless such estimation of damage upon due inspection in respect of the material existence of the vehicle, the prayer for insurance claim cannot be considered.  Thus, the Op Insurance Company has strong reasonable ground for inability to come a definite conclusion for consideration of the claim case.

Contd………………..P/3

                                                                 

                                                                                                                      - ( 3 )-

 

              We have considered the case of both parties and their documents filed on record in Xerox copies it appears that there  is no doubt that the truck being its registration No.WB-33/8216 has

been damaged due to burn allegedly caused by some unknown miscreants.  Now question is that for the purpose of Insurance claim, the damage is to be estimated whether the vehicle was totally damaged or in part and it could be only possible if the alleged vehicle is materially found to have

 

 exist.  In this connection, there is no specific claim identically for partial damage or complete damage of the vehicle.  Under such fact and circumstances it is difficult for the Op Insurance Company to deal with the matter and as such we do not find any bonafide ground for arriving at final decision in respect of the allegation of deficiency of service as raised by the complainant in his entire case.

            In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the complainant has no cause of action for raising the allegation of deficiency of service against the Op Insurance Company and as such the case should fail in it’s present form.  Now, other issues are of no good in favour of the complainant.

  Thus, all the issues are disposed of.  As a result, the case should fail.

                                                 Hence

                                                          It is ordered

          That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.

          

              

         President                                             Member                                                President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                          Paschim Medinipur.