In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 37 / 2011.
1) Sanjay Jaiswal ,
33, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Kolkata-72. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) The Branch Manager,
IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.
9/1, Metro Towers, 1, Ho-Chi-Minh Sarani,
Kolkata-71, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani.
2) IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.
4th & 5th floor, IFFCO Tower, Plot No.3,
Sector-29, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 18 Dated 08/10/2012.
The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Sanjay Jaiswal against the o.ps. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant had a two wheelers vehicle vide no.WB-01Y 0952 having engine no.OSJAPM02942 and chassis no. OSJAPCO 1864 which was under the coverage of IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. The date and time of commencement of the policy was started from 20.3.08 to midnight of 20.3.09 with yearly premium for Rs.887/- over the coverage of the said vehicle of Rs.33,000/-.
O.p. no.1 only gave cover note of motor vehicle insurance policy having cover note no.36210002 temporarily but till date the insurance company did not provide or hand over the policy to the complainant. Complainant person ally visited at the office of o.p. no.1 and requested to hand over the policy but they did not provide the same. The said vehicle faced with damage while it was parked in the factory premises at 114, Princep Street, Dyna Market, Kolkata, of the complainant which caught fire on 14.3.09 and as a consequence the vehicle was damaged and complainant as a formality duly informed and lodged the complaint to o.p. no.1 vide claim intent no.07-AON3HP dt.14.3.09 and lodged a G.D.E. before the local police station dt.18.3.09 and 19.3.09 having G.D.E. no.1921.
Therefore, complainant in order to continue his policy requested the o.p. no.1 to renew this policy and wanted to deposit the premium but o.p. refused to accept the premium and complainant wanted to know how he will claimed this loss dt.18.3.09 but o.p. did not give any reply. Complainant also lodged the complaint before the insurance ombudsman dt.20.8.09 and as per their demand complainant submitted all necessary papers but in vain.
Further case of the complainant is that policy was issued in favour of complainant for his two wheelers vehicle and premium was paid and accepted but till now o.p. insurance company neither repudiate nor accept the claim of the complainant. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument has stated that the instant has got no merit and is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with reasons:-
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. Fact remains that complainant had insurance policy with o.ps. but policy was not handed over to complainant and complainant went on paying premium of Rs.887/- yearly and the coverage of the said vehicle was Rs.33,000/- and the vehicle was damaged owing to fire on 14.3.09 and matter was informed to o.p. no.1 vide claim no.07-AON3HP dt.14.3.09. He also lodged GD before the local P.S. on 18.3.09 and 29.3.09 but the claim of the complainant was neither allowed nor repudiated and the said vehicle was not coverage of o.p. no.2 and policy coverage started from 20.3.09 with yearly premium of R.887/-, but no policy was handed over to complainant barring cover note and this act on the part of o.ps. amounts to gross deficiency in service being service provider to its consumer / complainant and the fact of non entertainment of the claim nor repudiation amounts to deficiency in service as per settle principle of law. Accordingly, we hold that o.ps. had sufficient deficiencies on their part and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest against both o.ps. with cost. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.33,000/- (Rupees thirty three thousand) only the sum insured and compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
