IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/147/2015.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
14.10.15 02.11.15 07.06.19
Complainant: Sairul Haque
S/O- Imran Haque, Vill- Mangal Zone,
PO- Ghorsala, PS- Ragunathganj,
Pin- 742229
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1.The Branch Manager,
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
03/20/B, K.K. Banerjee Road,
PO & PS- Berhampore, Pin- 742101
2.The Regional Manager,
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Mani Square,
6th Floor, No. 164, Maniktala Main Road,
Mani Square Premises No. 41,
Canal Circle Road,
Kolkata- 700054
3.The Regional Manager,
TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Conspantia Office Complex, 2nd Floor,
11 Dr. U.N. Brambhochary Street,
Kolkata- 700017
4. Shankar Tiwary
M/S. Dubey & Tiwary,
07, Tarachand Dutta Street,
Kolkata- 700073
5.Anup Kumar Das, Executive Officer,
Premier Road Service Ltd,
Om Tower, 14th Floor, Suite No. 1405,
32, Chowringhee Road,
Kolkata-700071
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri Partha Sarathi Ghosh
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No. 1&2 : Sri. Prabir Kr. Banerjee.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No. 3 : Sri. Amiya Kr. Sinha.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Sairul Haque (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. and Others (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant is the owner of Tata LPT 2518 truck being registration No. WB57B/4964 and it was insured through the OP Nos. 1 and 2 vide insurance policy No. OG-2401-1803-00011019 for the period from 09.11.12 to 08.11.13 and the same was hypothecated for five years with the OP No.3. The Complainant used to employ his truck on hired agreement with OP No.4 who usually dealt with the truck through the OP No.5. On 23.03.13 the said truck loaded with goods was subjected to theft at Mirjapur, Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, the Complainant became a scape goat in the hands of OP No.5 and a specific criminal case being Boubazar PS case No. 161/2013 dated 25.03.13 was initiated against the Complainant along with the driver and the helper U/Ss 120/B/407 IPC and ultimately the Complainant was released on bail and subsequently discharged from the case on 12.05.15. The Complainant repeatedly requested the OP Nos.1 and 2 to settle his claim but the OP Nos.1 and 2 did not pay any heed to it and ultimately repudiated his claim vide letter dated 19.12.13. The Complainant sent a letter to the O No.2 through his Advocate, Akbar Ali on 24.07.15 for settlement of his claim but of no result. The OPs have deficiency in service. Hence, the Complainant has filed the case against the OPs. The Complainant prayed for direction upon the OP Nos.1 and 2 to disburse the claimed amount to the Complainant.
The OP Nos.1 and 2 filed written version on 10.08.16, contending that the case is not maintainable and the claim of the Complainant was repudiated due to non-cooperation and non-submission of documents. The Complainant has intimated the fact of theft on 16.04.13 though the date of loss was 21st March, 2013. The Complainant has not filed FIR for loss of his vehicle. The OP Nos. 1 and 2 pray for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The OP No. 3 contested the case by filing written version on 22.03.16, contending that the Complainant is not a consumer and the OP No.3 has not issued any policy. The OP No.3 prays for dismissal of the complaint.
The OP No. 4 and 5 did not turn up in spite of service of notice.
On the basis of the above versions following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
- Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as alleged?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Point no.1
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that she is a consumer as she hired services of the OP for consideration.
On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986 as he hired services of the OP Nos. 1&2 for consideration.
Point No.2
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.
On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Both the points are thus disposed of.
Point Nos.3&4
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the OPs have admitted that the Complainant had a valid insurance policy in respect of his truck being registration No. WB57B4964 during the period from 09.11.12 to 08.11.13
He argues that an FIR was lodged by the OP No. 5 Boubazar PS case No. 161/2013 dated 25.05.13 and the Complainant was falsely implicated in the said case. He contends that the Complainant was discharged from the case on 12.05.15 and supplied all documents to the OP Nos. 1 and 2 for settlement of his claim but the OP Nos. 1 and 2 repudiated his claim vide letter dated 19.12.13. He argues that the repudiation of his claim towards theft of vehicle No. WB57B4964 was baseless and the OP Nos. 1 and 2 are duty bound to settle the claim. It is urged that the OP Nos. 1 and 2 have deficiency in service. He prays for compensation against the OP No.1 and 2 for deficiency in service and a direction upon the OP Nos. 1 and 2 so that his claim may be settled within a short period.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the OP Nos. 1 and 2 engaged Pitterjee Risk Involve solution Management (PRISM) for investigation and the Complainant was intimated vide letter dated 07.08.13, 13.09.13 and 27.11.13 for supply of documents, clarification of date of loss and statement of one Nasib Kha but the Complainant did not provide any of it, resulting repudiation of the claim for non-cooperation and non-submission of documents by the Complainant. It is contended that the OP Nos. 1 and 2 have no deficiency in service. He prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No.3 submits that the O.P. No. 3 is the financier and the complainant has no cause of action against the O.P. No. 3.
We have gone through the written complaint, written version evidence and documents submitted by both sides. We have also considered the submission of both sides. Admittedly, the Complainant was the owner of the vehicle No. WB57B4964 and the same was insured with the OP Nos. 1 and 2. Admittedly, the Complainant has alleged that his vehicle was subjected to theft during the continuance of his insurance policy. The main question is whether repudiation of the claim vide letter dated 19.12.13 by the OP Nos. 1 and 2 is justified or not?
Admittedly, the OP Nos. 1 and 2 engaged Pitterjee Risk Involve Solution Management (PRISM) for investigation and the OP Nos. 1 and 2 issued letters dated 07.08.13, 13.09.13 and 27.11.13 requesting the Complainant to submit clarification for date of loss, statement of one Nasib Kha and some documents. The Complainant has failed to produce any document to establish that he responded the notice dated 07.08.13,13.09.13 and 27.11.13.
On the other hand, it is not the case of OP Nos. 1 and 2 that the PRISM investigated the case and found no ground for settlement of the claim of the Complainant.
The OP Nos. 1 and 2 have asserted that repudiation of claim of the Complainant is due to non-cooperation and non-submission of documents by the Complainant.
On a careful consideration over the materials on record and the repudiation letter dated 19.12.13, we are of the considered view that the repudiation of claim of the Complainant on the ground of non-cooperation and non-submission of documents by the Complainant is not reasonable and justified.
We think that the OP Nos. 1 and 2 have deficiency in service. We find that the Complainant has not claimed any relief against the OP Nos. 3 to 5, so the Complainant can not get any relief against the OP Nos. 3-5.
We think that the OP Nos. 1 and 2 may be directed to re-open the case and to dispose of the claim of the Complainant within a period of sixty days from the date of submission of documents as per requirement of the O.P. Nos.1&2 in accordance with rule.
The Complainant is also directed to submit the documents as per requirement of the OP Nos. 1 and 2 viz. clarification for date of loss , Statement of Nasib Kha and any other documents, if required by the O.P. Nos 1&2 by fifteen days from the date of this order. The O.P. Nos. 1&2 are at liberty to request the Complainant to submit any other document by fifteen days from the date of this order for disposal of the claim of the complainant.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 14.10.15 and admitted on 02.11.15. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case succeeds in part.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No.CC/147/2015 be and the same is hereby allowed in part on contest against the OP Nos. 1&2 without cost and dismissed against the rest without cost.
The OP Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to re-open the claim case and to dispose of the claim of the Complainant within a period of sixty days from the date of submission of documents as per requirement of the O.P. Nos.1&2 in accordance with rule.
The Complainant is directed to submit the documents as per requirement of the OP Nos. 1 and 2, clarification for date of loss and settlement of Nasib Kha by fifteen days from the date of this order. The O.P. Nos. 1&2 are at liberty to request the Complainant to submit any other document by fifteen days from the date of this order for disposal of the claim of the complainant
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
Member President.
