West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/34/2015

Mr. Sahadat Ali Mondal, S/O Moksed Ali Mondal. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Somnath Gangopadhyay.

31 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

 

      C.C. CASE NO. _34_ OF ___2015_

 

DATE OF FILING : 20.1.2015                     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  10/08/2017

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :     Subrata Sarker  & Jhunu Prasad

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT             :   Mr. Sahadat Ali Mandal, son of Moksed Ali Mandal of Village-Faridpur, P.O Mallickpur, P.S Baruipur, Kolkata -144.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :  The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Swagatam 2^nd Floor, Ukil Para More, P.S & P.O Baruipur, Kolkata – 144.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

Sri Udayayan Mukhopadhyay, President

This is an application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 filed by the complainant on the ground that complainant purchased a Motor Cycle from Srikrishna Automobiles of Anandamoyee Bhavan, Kulpi Road, Baruipur, Kolkata-144 ,who is the authorized dealer of Hero Motor Corp. It has further stated that complainant also obtained Insurance policy from National Insurance Company who is O.P in this case by paying premium Rs.1,727/- only and the value of the Insurance policy is Rs.65,100/- . Thus the said motor cycle is covered under the policy of insurance which is valid on and from 23.12.2012 to 22.12.2013 being policy no.35100731126202591944. The said policy is annexed in annexure C. Thus the complainant is a consumer of the O.P. It has claimed that complainant is an holder of driving licence which was issued by the Regional Transport Authority , Alipore on 5.3.2010 . Complainant also deposited the lifetime tax in respect of the said Motor Cycle. It has claimed that complainant used to park the said motor cycle locked inside his residence keeping the main gate under lock and key and thereby all possible precautionary measures were taken. But on 5.7.2013 in the early morning when the complainant woke up and stepped out of the bed room finds that the motor cycle was stolen by braking the padlock of the gate of the verandah where the said motor cycle was kept on the previous night and immediately he informed the matter to the Officer-In-Charge of Baruipur P.S regarding theft and handed copy of complaint on 9.7.2013 being seal and signature therein. It has further claimed by the complainant that complainant also rushed to the office of the Srikrishna Automobile and told them about the incident and also visited the office of the O.P and informed the incident. One Officer of theO.P-2 asked him to bring the FIR number and an application addressing to the O.P along with Tax token, Insurance Policy and two keys of the vehicle. Thereafter on 9.7.2013 after receiving the FIR number from the Baruipur P.S vide FIR dated 9.7.2013 of Baruipur P.S Case no.705 dated 9.7.2013 complainant visited the office of the O.P with an application but the reasons best known to the O.P ,it was told to the complainant to come after one week and on 17.7.2013 when the complainant went to the office of the O.P ,one claim form was issued which the complainant submitted filling it properly. As per direction of the O.P he also informed the matter to the RTO, Alipore about the incident of theft. Thereafter, one Investigator came to the residence of the complainant and asked the complainant about the incident of theft of the motor cycle and asked the complainant to sign on some papers which according to him was necessary for obtaining the claim. It has stated that one years and six months already elapsed but the claim was not settled by the O.P only and give assurance and lastly legal notice was sent to the O.P but the O.P did not pay any heed to it. Accordingly non-payment of claim is clearly a glaring example of deficiency of service and hence this case praying for direction to the O.P to pay Rs.65,100/- the insured value of the stolen motor cycle along with compensation of Rs.50,000/-, and cost of Rs.50,000/-.

The O.P contested the case by filing written version and challenged the jurisdiction of the Forum and also claimed that the incomplete defective application was filed for which it is not maintainable. The O.P only admits that there was a valid policy of insurance covering theft in respect of the motor cycle and the said policy was valid on and from 23.12.2012 to 22.12.2013. it has further stated that complaint petition as well as in the FIR lodged in the P.S against the alleged theft. It is the positive case of the O.P that motor cycle was lying in the verandah of the complainant and after braking the lock theft was caused according to the FIR and FIR was started on 9.7.2013 and the incident happened on 5.7.2013. It has claimed by this O.P that two letters were sent on 2.9.2014 and  6.1.2015 by registered post with A/D with a direction to file original FIR and acceptance of FRT , purchase invoice of the motor cycle, Form 29 & 30 NCRB Report of the non judicial stamp paper and also to submit the number of the motor cycle keys, but the complainant neither submitted above noted documents nor any information in this regard. So, above documents are necessary from the complainant for taking steps for settlement of the claim. It has been claimed by the O.P that the application is wholly malafide, vexatious ,harassive ,afterthought and concocted story .   The O.P denied that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and prays for dismissal of the case.

                                                      Points for decision

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P or not.

                                                  Decision with reasons

 Admittedly the motor cycle of the complainant was theft and thereafter on the basis of the written complaint Baruipur P.S drawn up FIR being Baruipur P.S case no.705 dt. 9.7.2013 u/s 457/380 I.P.C . But in the FRT it is clear that under Section 457/380 IPC theft was committed by the unknown persons and although the original documents were seized and police prepared seizure list and thereafter handed over to the complainant as per jimma on 10.7.2013, the O.P has claimed by filing written version and other documents that due to non-compliance of necessary documents as claimed by the O.P on 6.1.2015 and2.9.2014 he is unable to settle the claim of the complainant.

In this circumstances complainant has claimed that he has submitted documents as per instruction of the O.P in answer to question no.6 and also stated that FRT dated 24.4.2014 was never demanded by the O.P and two keys of the motor cycle were also handed over as per answer to question no.8 and complainant has denied regarding receipt of letters dated 2.9.2014 and6.1.2015.

Now the question is that there is some misgiving between the parties and registered letter was not received by the complainant is not believable. However, at this stage complainant is at liberty to collect the copy of the said letters annexed with this case by the O.P with the written version as well as evidence from the office of the Forum for immediate compliance.

In this circumstances, it is

                                                                  Ordered

That the complaint case is disposed of with a direction given to the parties as follows:-

1. Complainant is directed to comply the requirements as mentioned in the letters dated 2.9.2014 and 6.1.2015  positively within one month from the date of this order and thereafter one month time is given to the O.P to settle the dues positively.
2. Thus both the parties are hereby directed to follow the direction of this Bench and since the case has not yet been repudiated , at this stage no further order can be passed towards the compensation and cost.
3. However, if the complainant submits the compliance as required by the O.P within one month from the date of this order, which has not been complied as yet, then if O.P failed to settle the dues within next one month , then O.P has to pay cost of Rs.5000/- and compensation of Rs.20,000/- for the harassment of the complainant.
4. At this stage nothing has to be paid by the O.P and only settle the dues ,failing which complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum as per direction made in above.

Let a plain copy of the order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.P through speed post.

                                               

Member                                               Member                                                           President

 

Dictated and corrected by me

                               

 

                        President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,   

 

                                                       Ordered

That the complaint case is disposed of with a direction given to the parties as follows:-

5. Complainant is directed to comply the requirements as mentioned in the letters dated 2.9.2014 and 6.1.2015  positively within one month from the date of this order and thereafter one month time is given to the O.P to settle the dues positively.
6. Thus both the parties are hereby directed to follow the direction of this Bench and since the case has not yet been repudiated , at this stage no further order can be passed towards the compensation and cost.
7. However, if the complainant submits the compliance as required by the O.P within one month from the date of this order, which has not been complied as yet, then if O.P failed to settle the dues within next one month , then O.P has to pay cost of Rs.5000/- and compensation of Rs.20,000/- for the harassment of the complainant.
8. At this stage nothing has to be paid by the O.P and only settle the dues ,failing which complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum as per direction made in above.

Let a plain copy of the order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.P through speed post.

                                               

Member                                               Member                                                           President