: J U D G M E N T :
This is a case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The facts of the case to put in a nutshell, are as below:-
The complainant, Arup Kumar Biswas purchased a motor cycle / two wheelers package policy being No. 313301/31/2009/4073 from the OP, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. for his motor cycle No. WB-52/G-5152. The sum assured of the policy is Rs. 1,00,000/- for the period from 11.12.2008 to 11.12.2009 (midnight). On 20/21.09.2009 the said motor cycle was stolen from the house of the complainant at night. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged to the Haringhata P.S. and the concerned P.S. stared a case No. 240/2009 dtd. 21.09.2009 under Section 457/ 380 IPC. On 28.09.2009 the complainant informed about this matter to the OP Insurance Company and submitted all the required documents asked by the OP. The complainant also knew that without final report the OP would not settle the claim of the complainant. Thereafter, Haringhata P.S. filed a final report before the ACJM, Kalyani on 14.12.09 for the theft of the motor cycle of the complainant which was also submitted by the complainant to the opposite party on 16.05.2010. The complainant requested several times to settle the claim but the opposite party paid no heed. As the theft occurred during the period of insurance coverage the complainant has stated that he is entitled to get the insured amount. Hence the complainant has filed this case before this Forum praying for an insured amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest, compensation of Rs. 30,000/- and cost of the suit.
A written version was filed by the OP, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. on 23.04.14 challenging the contentions of the complainant and denied all the allegations made in the complaint.
The sum and substance of the written version is as following:-
The petition / complaint is bad for defect of parties. The complaint is not maintainable in its present form. The petition is misconceived, mala fide and motivated one. The complaint is barred by law of limitation. The opposite party, Insurance Company denies the theft of the motor cycle No. WB 52G/5152 on 20/21.09.2009 from the house of the petitioner at night.
OP has stated that the motor cycle of the complainant was insured for the period from 11.12.2008 to 10.12.2009 and after theft of the motor cycle OP requested the complainant to submit all the documents like certified copy of the FIR, Final Report etc. but the petitioner did not file any documents till now to settle the claim. Thus, it is pending before the OP for want of required documents. So the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and thus, is liable to be rejected with cost.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Point No. 1: Is the complainant a consumer?
- Point No. 2: Is the claim bonafide?
- Point No. :3 Is the OP deficient in his service?
- Point No. 4: What relief the complainant is entitled to get?
REASOND DECISIONS
For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion. It is admitted that the complainant has obtained an insurance policy for motor cycle Hero Honda Glamour bearing no – WB/52G/5152 after paying the necessary consideration money ie premium amount in the office of OP / insurance company for the period from 11/12/2008 to 10/12/2009. In written argument the OP / insurance company also admitted that the petitioner is the owner of motor cycle being no – WB/52G/5152 which is insured by the OP . It is admitted that the policy period was existed from 11/12/2008 to 10/12/2009. So in view of the status of the complainant and OP, the complainant is a consumer as per Provision of Consumer Protection Act , 1986 .
It is true that the motor cycle was stolen on 21/09/2009 at night which is clearly revealed from FIR which was lodged to Haringhata Police Station and to that effect concerned police station has started a P S case no – 240/2009 dt 21/09/2009 u/s – 457/380 IPC. It is also fact that the motor cycle was stolen on 21/09/2009 which is within the policy period ie from 11/12/2008 to 10/12/2009.
It is admitted position that the case was genuine one and when the case was genuine one, it should be the duty of OP / insurance company to disburse the amount in favour of the complainant without any further harassment .
In the written version or in argument there is no specific story about the carelessness for keeping the vehicle unattended and unlocked on the part of the complainant. So it is believable fact that there is no negligence on the part of complainant.
In Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd Vs United India Insurance Co Ltd and another (2011 CTJ 11 S.C ) wherein the Apex court held that it is also well settled that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on amount of risks covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer
At this stage it is the moot question that how much money should be awarded in favour of complainant. It is fact and admitted that the total value of motor cycle was Rs. 46300/- which has been clearly revealed from the challan issued by S D Motors Nadia (annexure – 6). It is also fact that the motor vehicle has been used for 11 months approx after Purchasing the said motor cycle. So 10 % depreciation should be calculated upon the total value of Rs. 46300/-. So the complainant is entitled to get only Rs. 46300 – 4630 = 41670/- . There is a clear gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP / insurance company. All the points are decided on the basis of above observations. So the case succeeds. Hence
ORDERED
That the cc case no 2013/128 be and same is allowed on contest against the OP / insurance with cost of Rs. 500/-
That the OP / insurance company is hereby directed to pay Rs. 41670/- plus 500/- ie 42170/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date order in default 10 % interest shall be imposed upon the awarded amount till full payment.
Let the copy of order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
