This is a complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer for direction upon O.P./ Insurance Company to pay of Rs.5,40,600/- as compensation as per terms and condition of the policy and for compensation of Rs.5,000/- for unnecessary harassment and also Rs.20,000/- for litigation cost.

The case of the complainant Imteyaz Alam in short is that he is  the registered owner of vehicle WV60H/7288, Bolero Plus. On 01.09.13 at 11.30 a.m. the driver started with the vehicle for Bhabaniganj  from Hatgaon and was to come back to Gunjaria. But when he did not return in  the next day petitioner lodged G.D.E at Islampur P.S. and the P.S..Case No.1057/13 dt. 02.09.13 u/s.364/392 I.P.C was started. After investigation police submitted charge sheet u/s.364/392/303/201/34 I.P.C.  Complainant stated that the theft of the car is informed to O.P/Insurance Company.

The vehicle was insured with the O.P vide policy No.VPC0529255000100 valid from 27.11.12 to 26.11.13. Though the complainant intimated the entire fact to the O.P/Ins. Co. but O.P. did not take any initiative to dispose of the claim of the petitioner under the policy. Thereby causing unnecessary harassment and complainant is entitled to receive the cost of the vehicle at Rs.5,40,600/- as per terms and conditions of the policy . The complainant alleged that O.P is negligent and deficient in service  and is doing unfair trade practice causing mental pain and agony. Cause of action arose on 14.03.16 when last communication was made with the Company by the complainant. So, he filed this case before the Forum with the above mentioned prayer.

O.P/ Ins. Co. appeared and contested the case by filing written version, wherein they categorically denied the allegations of the complainant. O.P. made a very elaborate written statement assailing the complaint. O.P admitted that petitioner informed the matter of theft of the vehicle to the O.P office on 30.01.14 after about one month while incident occurred on 01.09.13 and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the Ins. Policy.  O.P admitted that Private Car Package Policy purchased by the complainant for the vehicle valid for the period from 27.11.12 up to 26.11.13. That, O.P appointed claim investigator to investigate the loss  and in the process it was discovered at the time of theft vehicle was used for hire and reward purpose. That, afterwards another investigator of O.P Biplab Roy traced the stolen vehicle in Kakarvita, Nepal- India border and that the vehicle in question was found lying in the office of Customs Deptt. of Nepal. That, it was informed to the complainant, but complainant did not take any step to release the vehicle and after giving sufficient time to the complainant on 23.06.15 sent letter to complainant informing that if no response is received within 7 days  the claim of the complainant would be treated as “no claim”. That, O.P. had done their part taking all steps to trace the vehicle and intimating the same to the complainant, therefore cannot be held liable and prays for dismissal of this case on the grounds of violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.   

DECISION WITH REASONS

Petitioner has been examined as P.W.1and O.P/Ins. Co did not adduce any evidence. Petitioner filed documents like certified copy of F.I.R. Charge Sheet, Seizure List. O.P also files photo copy of G.D. Entry of registration certificate of Ins. Policy, driving license, tax token and photo copy of letters to the Ins. Co., lawyer’s notice, voter identity card of the petitioner etc. O.P only files W.V but did not file any documents as described in W.V.

Giving due consideration to the contents of the complaint petition, documentary evidence on record, hearing, argument advanced by the lawyers of both sides, the Ld. Forum has come to the findings as follows: -

Petitioner in his evidence deposes that when on 01.09.13 the driver did not come back with the vehicle he lodged G.D. Entry No.68 dt. 02.09.13 at Islampur P.S. The copy of the F.I.R is filed stated therein that the complainant apprehends the theft of the vehicle  and he suspects one Mehetab Alam who accompanied the driver Sahanwaj has committed the theft. The Islampur P.S started the case following the F.I.R u/s.364/392 I.P.C on 02.09.13 and afterwards registered as G.R.3255 of 2013  before Ld.A.C.J.M  and certified copy of charge sheet goes to show that  after completion of investigation charge sheet  was submitted against one Mehetab Alam and two others u/s.364/392/302/201/34 I.P.C. Brief facts stating that accd. Mehetab Alam kidnapped the driver of the vehicle namely Sahanwaj and snatched the Bolero Car with the help of other accd. persons and then killed the driver Sahanwaj and sold away the car. The property seized by police in connection with the vehicle is registration certificate from one of the accd. namely Safikul Alam. Police could not trace the vehicle.

The complaint gave the intimation of theft to the O.P/Company giving details of the missing diary and starting of the Crl. Case etc. Complainant also informed that he came to know about the incident of driver Sahanwaj from Hindi daily Hundusthan Paper d on 03.09.13 that the dead body was lying in Behar L.R.P.State pukka road, was recovered by Bahadurganj P.S. police and sent for P.M. examination at Kishanganj . After getting information from hospital complainant went there and identify the dead body of driver.

O.P stated in W.V that they received information of theft from complainant on 30.01.14 after a long gap of one month and that petitioner violated the policy condition by not informing the theft immediately. Delay in informing theft is a ground as the complainant was duty bound to inform immediately because on account of delayed intimation Ins. Co. was deprived of its legitimate right to get enquiry conducted into alleged theft of vehicle and make an endevour to recover the same. But in our case O.P in his written version at the same time admits and claims  that their investigator Biplab Roy traced the stolen vehicle and found the same lying at the office of the Custom Deptt., Nepal and that the investigator also took photographs of the vehicle in question at Nepal. Therefore, the argument that delay in informing the theft deprived Ins. Co. of its valuable rights to trace out the vehicle was denied by the complainant, is not tenable in this case  and is not acceptable  to this Forum .  Ld. Lawyer for petitioner argues that this fact of “stolen car was found at Nepal”  is simply an attempt on the part of the O.P to confuse the court . No report of the investigator is filed by the O.P. Investigator was never examined as O.P.W.  O.P/Ins. Co. did not show any endevour to recover the stolen vehicle. On the other hand O.P/Ins. Co. did not challenge the charge sheet submitted by the police. Therefore, petitioner has been able to prove the fact that the Bolero Car was snatched away from the driver of the complaint on that fateful day and the driver was brutally murdered. In cross examination P.W.1 stated that he received the certificate from the concerned P.S that the vehicle could not be traced by the police and that the murder case is still pending. The car remains untraceable.

From the document filed by the petitioner including policy papers, hehas been able to prove that he is the owner of the vehicle WB 60H/7288. He purchased the Private Car Package Policy. The vehicle was stolen away and the driver was murdered, during the validity of the Ins. Policy. O.P failed to disprove this fact by sufficient oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, O.P cannot repudiate the claim of petitioner as “no claim” and O.P was duly informed and it was O.P’s case that they were able to get whereabouts of the stolen vehicle. But there is no initiative on their part to show that they took pain to recover the vehicle. There is no document filed by the  O.P. to show that they intimated complainant that the fact of lying the vehicle at Customs Office at Nepal and no document to prove that complainant did not take any step in spite of being informed about the whereabouts of the car. O.P admitted that the petitioner following all the formalities make a claim of insured vehicle following the theft. Therefore, O.P without taking any initiative on its part to dispose of the claim to the petitioner under the said policy cannot avoid its liability under the terms and conditions of the policy. Petitioner has been able to prove that the conduct of the O.P amounts to intentional negligence, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

On perusal of the evidence and records and documents submitted by the petitioner and after hearing arguments advanced by both the parties this Forum come to the conclusion that the petitioner has been able to establish his case and is entitled to get relief accordingly.

Therefore, we find there is a gross negligence on the part of the O.P/Insurance Company   that it wrongly closed the claim as ‘No Claim’. The complainant is entitled to get relief from O.P./ Insurance Company in the light of our above discussion.

Fees paid is correct. Hence, it is

ORDERED,

That the consumer complaint being No. CC-39/2016  be and the same succeeds on contest but in part.

The O.P/Insurance   Company is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,40,600/-  total I.D.V under the policy No.VPC 0529255000100 as the compensation of claim for theft and loss of the vehicle No. WB60H/7288. We direct the O.P/Insurance Company to pay the said amount with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of filing of this case i.e. on 03.06.16.  Further, we direct the O.P. to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment and mental pain and Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost. Entire amount be paid within one month from this day, lest interest to be imposed at the rate of 9% per annum till full realization. Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.