: 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, Asim Saha purchased a motorized two wheelers package policy Zone-B being No. 313301/31/2011/7335 from the OP, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. for his motor cycle No. WB-52/J-1370. The sum assured of the policy is Rs. 1,00,000/- and the policy covers owner cum driver and total value of the policy is Rs. 48,500/- for the period from 19.03.11 to 18.03.12 (midnight). On 25.11.2011 the said motor cycle was stolen from the custody of the complainant’s relative Malay Saha at Barajaguli, Harendra Corner, Airtel Distributor, Nadia District in between 3.35 pm to 3.45 pm. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged to the Haringhata P.S. case No. 546/11 dtd. 25.11.2011 under Section 379 IPC. On 26.11.2011 the complainant informed about this matter to the OP Insurance Company and also sent a letter by his advocate on 31.07.2013 but in vain. Thereafter, Haringhata P.S. filed a final report before the ACJM, Kalyani for the theft of the motor cycle of the complainant. 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 Insurance Company on 22.04.14 challenging the contentions of the complainant and denied all the allegations.
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 52J/1370 on 25.11.11 between 3.35 pm to 3.45 pm from the custody of the Malay Saha at Barajaguli, Harendra Counter, Airtel Distributor, Nadia. OP has stated that the motor cycle of the complainant was insured for the period from 19.03.11 to 18.03.12 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 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 present claim bona fide?
- 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 Bajaj Pulser bearing no – WB/52/J/1370 after paying the necessary consideration money ie premium amount of Rs. 904/- in the office of OP / insurance company for the period from 19/03/2011 to 18/03/2012 which is clearly revealed from the policy certificate . 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 25/11/2011 at about 3.45 pm 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 – 546/11 dt 25/11/2011 u/s – 379 IPC. It is also fact that the motor cycle was stolen on 25/11/2011 which is within the policy period ie from 19/03/2011 to 18/03/2012.
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. 48500/- which has been clearly declared in the policy certificate. It is also fact that the motor vehicle has been used for 8 months approx after obtaining this policy. So 10 % depreciation should be calculated upon the total value of Rs. 48500/-. So the complainant is entitled to get only Rs. 48500 – 4850 = 43650/- . 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 2013/130 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. 43650/- plus 500/- ie 44150/- 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.
