IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT SILIGURI.
CONSUMER CASE NO 62/S/2017. DATE OF FILING: 24-07-2017.
BEFORE PRESIDENT : SRI KANHAIYA PRASAD SHAH,
President, D.C.D.R.C., Siliguri.
MEMBERS : SRI TAPAN KUMAR BARMAN &
SMT. MALLIKA SAMADDER .
COMPLAINANT : Samaru Mohammad,
S/O- Late Gani Mohammad, R/O- Tinbati More,
P.O.- Satelite Township, P.S.-Bhaktinagar,
Dist.- Jalpaiguri, Pin.- 734015 (W.B.).
O.Ps. 1. : Reliance General Insurance,
Registered Office at Geetanjali Complex, 1st floor,
Sevoke Road, Siliguri, WB- 734001.
2. : Reliance General Insurance,
Registered Office 38-B, 8th Floor, Himalaya House,
J.L Nehru Road, Kolkata – 700071.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Kaushik Sinha Sarkar, Advocate.
FOR THE OPs. : Jogendra Pal Pawa, Advocate.
FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
Date:24-02-2021.
Complainant’s case in short is that he was the owner of Motor Cycle Registration No. WB-74/AC6172 and his motor cycle was insured with OP and Insurance policy was valid from 27.12.2014 to 26.12.2015. Thereafter on 13.12.2015 his motor cycle was stolen by unknown miscreants from Santipara, Siliguri and the original documents also which were kept in the box of said vehicle which consisted of registration certificate, insurance, pollution, tax receipt and others. This happened at Santipara of Siliguri and on next date i.e. 14.12.2015 he lodged complaint to Bhakinagar PS regarding theft of above motor cycle and Bhakitanar PS stated case no. 1741 of 2015 and later police filed FRT No. 708 of 2016 on 31.05.2016 in respect of said vehicle. The complainant has informed the matter to respondent for claim of insurance which was registered as claim no. 3215003978 by OP No. 1 and an investigator namely Suhbajit Das was appointed who submitted investigation report but complainant did not receive any claim amount.
It is further case of the complainant that he sent a letter dt. 11.02.2017 to the respondent to take appropriate step for sanctioning the said claim but the respondent did not give any
Contd….P/2.
-:2:-
response after receipt of the letter. Thereafter complainant again sent another letter dt. 06.07.2017 to respondent who received the letter but did not reply the same. The complainant waited for some period and found that respondent has committed or adopted unfair trade practice for which complaint is suffering from irreparable loss and injury which could have been derive by use of vehicle.
It is further case of the complainant that when the respondent did not meet the grievance of the complainant and did not cooperate then has to file this complaint before this Forum with prayer for relief as mentioned (i) Claim of Rs. 45,000/- against the motor cycle, (ii) A sum of Rs. 20,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment and (iii) A sum of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation charges.
In support of his claim complainant filed copy of registration certificate of motor cycle, copy of Insurance claim, photo copy of certified copy of Bhaktinagar PS case, photo copy of appointment letter of investigator and photo copies of letters sent to OPs on several dates. The complainant filed some of original documents at the time of evidence.
After admission of the complaint process were issued upon OPs who appeared and filed their written version.
In the written version it has been alleged by OPs that there is no cause of action against the OPs and complaint is frivolous. The specific allegation of OPs are that Vehicle in question was insured with terms and conditions and exclusions mentioned therein. The complainant is required to lodge intimation immediately but complainant lodged the intimation after one day of incident on 14.12.2015 and thereafter OP appointed investigator Subhajit Das on 17.12.2015. The complainant while lodged the claim did not provide relevant documents with claim form as such OP sent reminder letters dt. 06.05.2016, 06.09.2016 and 06.10.2016 asking the complainant to furnish the requisites documents which are mandatory to process a theft claim but there was no response from complainant side, so vide letter dt. 24.10.2016 complainant was informed that claim has been closed.
It is further defence of OP that as complainant would not fulfilled the requirement, so the claim was closed for waiting period of even after 10 months and there was no negligence or carelessness as alleged by complainant towards OP. Further the complainant has obtained certified copy of final order from the concerned court on 20.05.2017 but did not bother to submit the same to OP and this complaint has been filed even before obtaining the police report. The OPs are guided by the guide lines of IRDA. The complainant has also hypothecated the vehicle in question to Indusind Bank Ltd. Siliguri and this bank has not been made a
Contd….P/3.
-:3:-
party in this case. The question of providing services comes only after condition precedents are satisfied as the complainant has not fulfilled the prerequisite conditions, so claim has been closed.
In support his written version the OPs have enclosed copies of the letters dt. 17.12.2015, 06.05.2016, 06.09.2016, 06.10.2016 and 24.10.2016 sent to complainant by OPs.
The OP has prayed to accept the written version filed as evidence in this case. Both sides have filed written notes of argument supporting the complaint and written version.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
After considering the complaint, written version, documents and evidences following points are required to be considered:
- Is the complainant a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act?
- Is there any deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposites Parties towards complainant?
- Is Indusind Bank Limited a necessary party in this complaint case?
- Is the complainant entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
The Points No. 1, 2 & 3 are taken up together for decisions as each are inter related. It is admitted fact as appears from the oral evidence and documentary evidence that complainant has purchased a motor cycle which has been registered as WB/74-AC 6172 in the name of complainant and the registration certificate is dated 30.12.2013 and registration is valid up to 26.12.2028. The registration also shows that vehicle in question has been hypothecation with Indusind Bank Ltd. Siliguri. Though complainant has not filed policy copy of insurance but Op has admitted that vehicle in question was duly insured with OPs. The OPs have not filed any copy regarding terms and conditions of the policy. From the above it is clear that complainant has bought insurance policy from the OPs and OPs have issued the same in respect of concerned motor cycle, so the complainant is a consumer as per definition mentioned in the consumer protection Act.
Now let us consider allegations regarding deficiency in service as alleged. From the copy of claim form it appears that it contains some details in which policy number and validity period of policy has been mentioned with details of registration number, chassis number and name of financer, the date of incident has been mentioned on 13.12.2015 at 8pm. The claim has been lodged
Contd….P/4.
-:4:-
with information to OPs on 14.12.2015 after one day this shows that there is no such inordinate delay as incident has occurred at night. From the certified copy of FIR it appears that complainant has lodged the complaint on 14.12.2015 and date has been over written and police has started case on 15.12.2015 under section 379 IPC. Thereafter during investigation police has examined witnesses but has not found sufficient material to trace the miscreants/accuse persons and Motorcycle, so has submitted FRT before the concerned court which has been accepted by the court.
From the documents submitted by the OPs it appears that Subhajit Das was appointed as investigator vide letter dt. 17.12.2015 and OP has asked the complainant in the said letter to furnish some required documents. Thereafter reminder letters have been issued to complainant and at last by letter dt. 24.10.2016, OPs has informed to complainant that due to non-submission of mentioned documents claim has been closed. Whereas the complainant’s letters dated are 11.02.2017, 06. 07. 2017 for release of insurance claim.
If the required documents which have been asked for are seen then those are mainly claim for original registration certificate, driving license, original FIR and Pnachnama, Copy of particulars with vehicle stolen remark and vehicle’s 2 key.
It appears complainant has submitted claim form, copy of Registration certificate. So far as driving license is considered no document is there. Regarding original FIR and Panchnama copy, it can be said that original FIR is filed to Police and Police also prepare panchnama and later send those before concerned court, so a person after obtaining certified copy may file those with claim form.
It appears from certified copy issued from the Jalpaiguri Court that police sent the original FIR lodged by complainant before the Ld. CJM Jalpaiguri court, on 16.12.2015. I.O. submitted final report before the Ld. CJM, Jalpaiguri on 18.5.2017 and after hearing case was disposed off. The complainant obtained the certified copy, police case recorded on 22/05/2017 after preparation on 20.05.2017, So before this date there was no scope for the complainant to file copy of Final report by police. It appears after obtaining the police case record the complainant has furnished those.
The Opposite Parties have closed the claim of the complainant on 24.10.2016 long before FRT by police of Jalpaiguri, Bhaktinagar police station and claim has been closed due to non submission of documents. From these it appears complainant was not in possession of relevant documents when OPs have closed claim of complainant.
Contd….P/5.
-:5:-
From the complainant’s side it appear, he send letter dt. 11.02.2017 & 06.07.2017 while letter dt. 06.07.2017 was sent the complainant has copy of Final Police report, so at least he could has send the police copy with letter dt. 06.07.2017 for reopening of closed claim case but this was not done because complaint has found that claim has been closed on 24.10.2016.
However when both sides have produced their documentary evidences and there is no allegation that no such incident of theft has occurred as alleged by the complainant then this commission being protection of the interest of consumer as well as Opposite Parties the disputes are required to be decided on merit.
In this case Opposite Parties have argued that Indusind Bank who is financier of the Motor cycle should have been made party. On this score it appears Financier will not be a necessary party unless any relief is sought against him. If complainant had made any default in payment with financier then it will be within complainant and financier and not with insurance company, so financier Indusind Bank does not appear to be a necessary party in this complaint.
Regarding deficiency in service by OPs as alleged, it has been stated that after filing of this complaint and on receipt of documents OPs could have settled the dispute but OPs have not tried to solve it, so there is deficiency in service. This appears that it was within domain of OPs but have failed to do it.
Let us consider relief claim by complainant for Rs. 45,000/- as insurance claim against Motor cycle. For this consideration the complainant has not filed any of insurance policy nor bill for purchase amount and motor cycle was purchased in the year 2013. However the Opposite Parties nor in the written version or argument have denied this amount, so the complainant entitled for this amount.
Regarding mental pain, agony and harassment are considered then it appears though complainant has to face these but in the circumstances of the case he is entitled for Rs. 15,000/- for these purpose. Regarding the litigation costs this commission is of the view that he should not receive the same. Thus in total complainant is entitled for Rs. 45,000/- + 15,000/- = 60,000/- only from the Opposite parties.
In the result complainant case succeeds and complainant is entitled for relief s as discussed above.
Hence, it is ordered
That Complaint Case No. C.C.- 62/S/2017 is allowed on contest in part. The complainant shall be entitled for Rs. 45,000/- towards insurance of claim amount against motor cycle No. WB-74/AC-6172 from Opposite Party.
Contd….P/6.
-:6:-
It is further ordered that complainant shall entitle for Rs. 15,000/- towards mental pain and agony.
The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the total amount of Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order and in default the Opposite Parties shall have pay an interest @ 12% per annum there after till the date of realization.
Let a copy of this Judgment/Final Order be provided to the parties free of cost.
