Written by: Sri Santi Prosad Roy, Member
Corrected by: Sri Kamal Dey, President
The case arose over the repudiation of the insurance claim of the complainant by the OP.
The case of the complainant, in short, is that the complainant owns a jewellery shop under the name and style as “M/s Ramkrishna Jewellers” at village and P.O. Barnan, P.S.-Kolaghat, Purba Medinipur. The complainant took a Burglary Insurance Policy from the OP being no. OG-14-2401-4010-00001089 of insured value to the tune of Rs.400000/-. The complainant used to pay premium through United Bank of India, Mecheda Branch.
On 15/16.09.2013 a burglary of gold and silver ornaments took place in the said shop of the complainant by breaking the collapsible gate and shutter by some miscreants. On 16.09.2013 at 4 P.M., the complainant came to know the incident of burglary. After receiving such information, the complainant’s father became ill. The complainant informed the said incident to Kolaghat P.S. immediately over telephone. However, the complainant lodged FIR before the O/C, Kolaghat P.S. on 20.09.2013 at 21.05 hrs. who registered a case being no. 298/13 dtd. 20.09.2013 u/s 380 IPC, as he was busy for the treatment of his father. He also informed the incident to the OP on 16.09.2013 over telephone.
Thereafter, the complainant filed insurance claim before the OP by filling all documents and the OP docketed the claim as claim no. OC-14-2401-4010-00000023 reported date of loss 16.09.2013. However, the OP did not pay any amount to the complainant and repudiated the said claim by a letter dtd. 20.02.2014 for which the complainant has incurred huge loss and has been suffering from mental agony. Hence, the case.
The OP has neither appeared on receiving notice nor contested the case. The case is heard exparte against the OP.
Points for consideration
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief, as sought for?
Decision with reason
Both the points are taken up together for brevity and convenience of discussion as they are interrelated.
We have perused all the documents filed by the complainant.
It appears that the complainant took a Burglary Insurance Policy from the OP being no. OG-14-2401-4010-00001089 of insured value to the tune of Rs.400000/- for his shop situated at village and P.O. Barnan, P.S.-Kolaghat, Purba Medinipur. The complainant used to pay premium through United Bank of India, Mecheda Branch.
On 15/16.09.2013 some miscreants committed burglary of gold and silver ornaments in the shop of the complainant by breaking the collapsible gate and shutter. On 16.09.2013 at 4 P.M., the complainant came to know the incident of burglary. After receiving such information, the complainant’s father became ill. The complainant informed the said incident to Kolaghat P.S. immediately over telephone. However, the complainant lodged FIR before the O/C, Kolaghat P.S. on 20.09.2013 at 21.05 hrs. who registered a case being no. 298/13 dtd. 20.09.2013 u/s 380 IPC, as he was busy for the treatment of his father. He also informed the incident to the OP on 16.09.2013 over telephone. The date of obtaining such policy is not also mentioned in the petition of complaint.
Thereafter, the complainant filed insurance claim before the OP by filling all documents and the OP docketed the claim as claim no. OC-14-2401-4010-00000023. However, the OP did not pay any amount to the complainant and repudiated the said claim by a letter dtd. 20.02.2014.
The complainant in support of his claim filed the photocopy of the repudiation letter dtd. 20.02.2014 sent to him by the OP. On scrutiny of the said repudiation letter, it appears that the complainant filed the claim petition to the OP on 30.10.2013, which was docketed as claim no. OC-14-2401-4010-00000023 arising out of policy being no. OG-14-2401-4010-00001089. The OP sent an IRDA authorized Surveyor, M/s S.N. & Associates, for necessary assessment of the loss. The Surveyor visited the shop of the complainant in his presence on 31.10.2013 and sent letters of requirement to the complainant on three different dates on 03.01.2014, 17.01.2014 and 27.01.2014 requesting the complainant to give required documents to settle the claim. But the complainant failed to supply those documents to the OP/Surveyor. It also transpires from the letter of repudiation of the OP that the complainant took 44 days to file his claim petition to the OP, which is also a violation of policy condition of the policy of the OP and the reason is best known to the OP.
The complainant also failed to provide the Policy Certificate along with petition of complaint before the Forum. In absence of the said Policy Certificate, we have no scope to ascertain the terms and conditions of the policy. It is also not tangible before us as to why the complainant did not supply the relevant documents to the OP in spite of repeated requests and reminders by the OP. That apart, the complainant made a considerable delay of 44 days to file his claim before the OP. The inordinate delay in lodging the intimation or FIR also appears to be not satisfactory to us.
The ld. Lawyer for the complainant, however, filed two decisions of Hon’ble National Commission, vide 2014(2) CPR 305 (NC) and 2008(2) CPR 89 (NC). We have perused the decisions carefully, but we are afraid the said rulings are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.
After careful consideration and discussions made hereinabove, we hold that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case. Consequently, the complainant’s case fails.
Hence, it is,
ORDERED
that the complaint case being no. CC/99/2015 be and the same is dismissed exparte but on merit. We, however, make no order as to cost.
