1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Hero Honda Passion Pro Motor Cycle vide Chassis No.MBLHA10EWAGD49580, Engine No.HA10EDAGD58792 from M/s. Supreme Sales, Jeypore for Rs.46, 116/- on 17.5.2010 and registered the vehicle with RTO, Koraput vide No. OR 10G 8687. It is submitted that the vehicle was insured with the Ops through their agent at dealer’s point and the insurance is valid from 22.5.13 to 21.5.14 vide No.3005/19390650/10220/000 and when the said vehicle was under the possession of Jatin Santra, the younger brother of the complainant at Bhubaneswar, it was stolen by miscreants while it was parked in front of Plot No.29, Kharvel Nagar, Bhubaneswar on 21.8.13 in between 10.00 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. It is also submitted that the fact of theft was intimated to the Kharvel Nagar Police who registered a case vide No.203/2013 u/s.379 IPC and also intimated to the Ops on 23.8.13 who registered a Claim vide No. MOTO 3278347 after receipt of relevant documents through its agent. A case was registered in the Court of Hon’ble SDJM, Bhubaneswar vide C.T. No.3203 of 2013 and as per direction of the Ops, the RTO, Koraput was also intimated on 15.10.13 regarding theft of the insured vehicle. While the C.T. case was subjudiced, the Ops sent letters/ reminders to the complainant to submit (1) Original Court Certificate/certified final report (2) Indemnity Bond duly signed by the insured but the complainant could only file indemnity bond due to pending of case. It is also further submitted that the final order of the court was pronounced on 24.3.14 and the complainant obtained certified copy on 26.3.14 and immediately contacted the agent of the Ops at Bhubaneswar but nobody received the documents. Further the complainant has contacted Mr. Santanu Roy of ICICI office at Kolkata, known to be the Claims Head over telephone but he stated that they have closed the claim file. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to pay Rs.46, 116/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of theft and to pay Rs.25, 000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant.
2. The Ops filed counter in joint admitting the insurance of the vehicle in question with them valid from 22.5.13 to 21.5.14 and the registration of claim with them. It is contended that the Ops instructed the complainant to submit copy of R. C. Book, intimation letter to RTO, Indemnity bond duly signed by the insured, certified copy of FIR and final report from SDJM Court, Bhubaneswar and duplicate Key of the vehicle along with claim from but the complainant only filed claim form and copy of R. C. Book to the insurance Co. without submitting required documents for which the Insurance Co. could not be able to settle the claim of the complainant for which the complainant was reminded several times. Thus denying any deficiency in service on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. The complainant only filed certain documents in support of his case. Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.
4. In this case, insurance of the theft vehicle bearing No. OR 10G 8687 valid from 22.5.13 to 21.5.14 with the Ops vide Policy No.3005/19390650/10220/000 is an admitted fact. It is seen that the younger brother of the complainant was duly authorized by the complainant to use the vehicle at Bhubaneswar as ascertained from the record. The complainant stated that the insured vehicle was stolen by some miscreants when it was under the possession of his brother and was parked in front of Plot No.29, Kharvel Nagar, Bhubaneswar on 21.8.13 and the fact was reported to the local Police as well as the Insurance Co. and later on it was reported to the RTO, Koraput as per the advice of the OPs. In support of his above contentions, the complainant has filed relevant documents which are available on record.
5. The Ops submitted that the complainant only furnished claim form and copy of R. C. Book before the Insurance Co. without submitting intimation letter to RTO, Indemnity Bond duly signed by the insured, certified copy of FIR and final order of the court and for this they could not be able to settle the claim of the complainant early. The complainant submitted that the Ops engaged an agent at Bhubaneswar to look into the claim of the complainant and the complainant intimated the Ops through their agent regarding pending of C.T. Case and production of final report of the Police and the agent was very much aware about the position of the complainant. Further the complainant had prepared the Indemnity Bond on 7.11.13 to which he has handed over to the agent of the Ops, the copy of which is available on record and regarding duplicate Key, the complainant submitted that the duplicate key is misplaced and the original key is available with him and according to the complainant the above facts are within the knowledge of the agent of the Ops. Copy of intimation letter to RTO, Koraput is also available on record.
6. It is seen from the record that the Ops have sent letter dt.11.12.13, dt.05.2.14 and Closure letter dt.19.2.14 to the complainant asking him to submit (1) Intimation to the RTO, Koraput (2) Indemnity Bond duly signed by the insured (Rs.200/) Stamp Paper) (3) Original Court certified final report (4) Written statement for not providing the other key of the vehicle to them. We have carefully gone through the case record and found that all the copies of above required documents are available on record.
7. In this case the theft occurred on 21.8.13 and the Police filed final report on 22.11.13. The Ops on 11.12.13 in their 1st letter asked the complainant for the above documents followed by reminder dt.05.2.14 and closure letter dt.19.2.2014. The complainant on the pressure of the Ops had advanced his C.T.Case No.3203/13 pending before the Hon’ble SDJM, Bhubaneswar to 24.3.14 by filing a separate petition as ascertained from the final order of the said Court dt.24.3.14. On the said date, the complainant has prayed the Hon’ble Court to accept the final report submitted by the Police and only after acceptance of the final report of the Police, the Hon’ble Court has dropped the proceeding on 24.3.14. The complainant has also obtained certified copy of said order on 26.3.14 without making any delay to produce the same before the Ops. The complainant after getting all the required documents had approached the Ops but unfortunately they did not accept the documents as they had closed the claim file of the complainant.
8. Perused the closure letter dt.19.2.14 of the Ops and found that due to non submission of documents they have temporarily closed the claim file of the complainant. In this case, as we found, the complainant as per advice of the Ops has intimated the fact of theft to the RTO, Koraput on 15.10.13, signed Indemnity bonds on 7.11.13 in the stamp paper of Rs.200/-, obtained certified copy of order dt.24.3.14 within two days of its pronouncement. As the matter was under consideration before the Court, it was not possible on the part of the complainant to furnish the required documents before the Ops on their desire. However, the complainant in this case has adopted due process for settlement of his claim early. Further it was not a deliberate concealment of facts or fraud made by the complainant in any manner and the Ops have not repudiated the claim of the complainant till date. Therefore, non production of documents in time by the complainant is not deliberate but due to procedural delay but the Insurance Co. being in a dominating position acted in an unreasonable manner. This attitude of the OPs is clearly unwarranted not only being bad in law but ethically indefensible.
9. As per the submission of the complainant, the agent of the Ops knows all those facts but the Ops intentionally in order to harass the complainant had closed the claim file. The Insurance Co. should understand the position of the insured. Without understanding the position of the complainant, closure decision of the Ops in our opinion amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence the complainant is certainly entitled for the insured amount. As per policy document, it was ascertained from policy document that the declared insured value of the vehicle is Rs.27, 700/- during the relevant period and the complainant is entitled for the said amount with interest from the date of temporary closure of claim file. Further due to such arbitrary action of the Ops, the complainant must have undergone some mental agony and has come up with this case incurring some expenditure for which he is certainly entitled for some compensation and costs. Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel, a sum of the 10, 000/- towards compensation and costs will meet the ends of justice.
10. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops being jointly and severally liable are directed to pay Rs.27, 700/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 19.2.2014 and to pay Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. However, the Ops are at liberty to collect the required documents as required by them available on record, if they so like in the meanwhile.
(to dict.)
