West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/60/2015

Sri Badanlal Dutta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Aig General Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

03 Nov 2015

ORDER

                                                           DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President

and

 Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.60/2015

                                                       

                                          Sri Badanlal Dutta…………..….……Complainant.

Versus

                                      The General Manager Tata AIG General.…..Opp. Party.

 

              For the Complainant: Mr. Dipankar Pati, Advocate.

              For the O.P.                : Mr. Pinaki Sengupta, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 03/11/2015

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President - Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant purchased a Hero Motor Cycle from Sainath Automotives, the authorised dealer of Hero Motor Corporation on 24/10/2011 for a total sum of Rs.44,735/- including the cost of road tax, insurance etc.  The complainant insured his said vehicle with the     O.P.-Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. vide policy no.0180659843/000000/00 covering the period from 24/10/2011 to 23/10/2012.  After purchasing the said vehicle, while the complainant was returning home along with his brother by that motor cycle, then three persons detained them on the road at about 8.30 p.m. and they forcibly took away the motor cycle and mobile phone.  Said matter was duly intimated to the O.C. Sankrail P.S. on the next day i.e. on 25.10.2011 and a police case was started.  Police could not trace out the motor cycle and submitted final report in that case.   After getting copy of final report, the complainant made contact with the O.P.-Insurance Company and submitted all relevant documents as per requirement but they did nothing regarding settlement of claim of insurance.  Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 29/01/2015 through his

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

 

 

 

 

 

( 2 )

Advocate but of no good.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the opposite party to settle the insurance claim for theft of the motor cycle and for damages and compensation.

                  The O.P.-Insurance Company has contested this case by filling a written objection. Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party that the present petition of complaint is barred by limitation and as such it is not maintainable.  It is denied by the opposite party that after getting copy of final report, the complainant made contact with the O.P.-Insurance Company and submitted all relevant documents.  According to the opposite party, they made several request in writing as well as over phone to the complainant for submitting all documents for processing the claim on merit but till date no documents have been submitted by the complainant.  For that reason, the opposite party was constrained to close the claim for non-compliance for want of requisite documents.  It is further stated by the opposite party that vide their letter dated 09/03/2013, the complainant was asked to submit all relevant documents within 15 days from the date of issuance of the said letter and since the complainant did not fulfill the above requirement for furnishing those documents, so the opposite party was compelled to close the claim treating the same as “No Claim”.  Since on 09/03/2013 the claim was closed due to non-furnishing of the documents,  so there has been lapse more than 2 years till filing of the present case in the month of June 2015 and as such the present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation.  The opposite party, therefore, claims dismissal of the complaint case with cost.

 

                                          Point for decision

                      Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?     

                   

Decision with reasons

                            At the very outset, it is to be stated here that in this case neither the complainant nor the opposite party adduced any evidence either oral or documentary.  Of course, they have filed certain documents in support of their case. From the respective cases of the parties it appears that the alleged occurrence of theft took place on the night of 24/10/2011. A police case was started and in that case, police submitted final report on 31/12/2013.  According to the complainant after getting copy of final report, he made contact with the opposite party and submitted all relevant documents for settlement of the claim.  Complainant produced no papers to show that he submitted any such documents before the O.P.-Insurance Company for settlement of his claim.  On the contrary, we find

Contd…………………….P/3

 

 

 

 

 

( 3 )

from Annexure A, B & C that the O.P.-Insurance Company repeatedly asked the complainant to furnish all relevant documents for settlement of the claim and finally by their letter dated 09/03/2013 (Annexure–C) the O.P.-Insurance Company intimated the complainant that if no such documents are not filed within 15 days, then the file will be closed treating as “No Claim”.  Complainant filed no document to show that he submitted all such documents before the O.P.-Insurance Company.  It appears from Annexure–C that  that the said letter was sent by the registered post with AD on 09/03/2013 and since the complainant furnished no such documents, so the claim was closed treating the same as “No Claim”.  The present complaint has been filed on 22/05/2015, i.e. long after the period of limitation of 2 years from the date of issuance of that letter dated 09/03/2013 by the O.P.-Insurance Company.  There is no petition for condonation of such delay in filing the present complaint.   

   It is, therefore, held that the present complaint is barred by limitation and as such it is liable to be dismissed.

                                                  Hence, it is,

                                                     Ordered,

                                                                               that the complaint case no.60/2015  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

 

              Dictated & Corrected by me

                                Sd/-                                           Sd/-                                       Sd/-

                           President                                    Member                                 President

                                                                                                                          District Forum

                                                                                                                       Paschim Medinipur