West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/150/2012

Sri Bhupen Kumar Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

11 Sep 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.150/2012                                                         Date of disposal: 11/09/2013                               

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

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

 For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. A. Dutta. Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                        : Mr. P. Sengupta. Advocate.

          

Sri Bhupen Kumar Das S/o-Satish Chandra Das, Vill-Kalikapur, P.O.-Banka, P.S.-Chandrakona, Dist-Paschim Medinipur… …………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. Reliance General Insurance, Kharagpur Branch Office, 1^st Floor, M.S.Tower, O.T. Road, Inda, P.O. & P.S.-Kharagpur,  Dist-Paschim Medinipur
2. The Authorized officer, L & T Finance, Kharagpur Branch Office, O.T. Road, Inda, P.O. & P.S.-Kharagpur,  Dist-Paschim Medinipur …………….…Ops.

                      The case of the complainant Sri Bhupen Kumar Das, in short, is that he purchased a truck bearing its registration no.W.B.41-E/2099 with the financial help of Op. No.2 L.T. finance in terms of agreement made between themselves.  On 11/10/2010 at about 11 p.m. the vehicle was kept by the driver near the house of the complainant at Kalikapur, P.S. Chandrakona.  It is reported by the complainant in his case that the said vehicle so kept was at that night stolen away by some miscreants.  Accordingly F.I.R. dated 12/10/2010 was lodged with Chandrakona P.S.  After investigation final report dated 31/11/2011 was submitted.  In this connection, it is stated by the complainant that his vehicle was insured with the Op no.1 Reliance General Insurance and the theft was held within the valid period of his insurance policy No. (1516702334000041 from 31/03/2010 to 31/03/2011). Now complainant raises allegation that despite repeated request the Op no.1 Insurance Company has willfully withheld the claim of the complainant.  Stating the case the complainant has come before us with the prayer as mentioned in his petition.

                      Op no.1 Reliance General Company Ltd. contested the case by filing W/O challenging that the case is not maintainable on the ground that the complainant has mutually

Contd……………….P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

agreed to accept the sum as full and final settlement.  In this connection, it is submitted by the Op No.1 that after lapse of ten months since the final report submitted before the Op and thereupon the Op made payment to the financer by means of cheque no.255272 dated 27/10/2012 amounting to Rs.11,95000/-( Eleven lakhs ninety five thousand) only which has already been encased by the  financer Op no.2.  Thus, the Op no.1 claims that there is no deficiency in service on their part and as such the case should be dismissed.

                                                   Decisions with reasons

                        During hearing certain documents in Xerox copies are produced namely, (1) statement showing payment details in favour of the complainant through the Financer by paying Rs.11,95,000/- (Eleven Laks ninety five thousand) only by cheque; (2)  Consent letter duly signed by the complainant;  (3) No objection certificate signed by the complainant; (4) transfer of ownership signed by the complainant and (5) notice of termination of agreement duly signed by the complainant Shri  Bhupen Kumar Das  and argued by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Op no.1 that the payment of claim was taken by the complainant from the Op no.1 Insurance Company, even so, the case has been filed before this Forum.  In this context Ld. Advocate further submitted that as to how  after discharging  the relevant papers with consent letter, the instant case has been filed against the Insurance Company.  The complainant has no challenge or protest as regard to his consent letter and signing those relevant documents.  So according to the Ld. Advocate for the op/ Insurance Company there is no deficiency in service on the part of Insurance Company.

                    Ld. Advocate for the complainant on the other hand made his reply that by virtue of mere signature of the complainant in certain documents, it cannot be said that the Op Insurance Company has discharged his own liability in the matter of payment of his claim.  Here the Op/Insurance Company cannot make anything to avoid but to pay the full amount of compensation as claimed by the complainant.

                    Considering the case of both parties, it is very clear that the complainant did not make any disclosure as regard to the matter of furnishing a bunch of procedural papers together with consent letter.  Even there is no specific denial regarding the fact of his signature appearing in those papers.  It is not also the case of the complainant that he executed the consent letter and signed those papers under mistake or without his pre will, consent, on undue influence or coercion or under fraud or miss representation.

                   Under the fact and circumstances, it should be held that since this is not a definite case of the complainant that the consent letter together with procedural papers were obtained by means of fraud without consent, undue influence, mistake or miss representation, there is no legal merit in favour of the complainant and such the allegation made in the petition of complaint on deficiency  

Contd……………….P/3

 

- ( 3 ) -

in service against the Op shall not stand.  Thus, the complainant Sri Bhupen kumar Das has failed to establish his case for getting direction of this Forum in the tune of his prayer made in the petition.

                 Hence, it is,

                                    Ordered,

                                                    that the complainant case be and the same is  dismissed on contest without cost. Parties be supplied with the copy of Judgement free of cost.

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         President                    Member                    Member                                       President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                         Paschim Medinipur.