J U D G E M E N T
This is a case u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 directing an award of Rs. 45,000.00/- towards the Insurance Declared Value of the vehicle as per policy certificate, Rs.40,000.00/- towards mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs. 10,000.00/- towards litigation cost.
The complainant’s case in short is that he has a vehicle, which was covered under the Insurance Policy issued by New India Assurance Company Ltd. and it was issued by O.P. No.1 and the period of the policy was from 26.07.2012 to 25.07.2013. On 13.04.2013, the vehicle was parked beside a tea stall near HFCI Gate under Coke-Oven Police Station and the driver of the vehicle Mr. Sathik Mondal was sleeping in the house. When the driver woke up about 2.00 - 2.30 a.m., he noticed that the vehicle had been stolen. The driver informed the complainant about it and he immediately went to search there, but it was not found. Then the complainant went to Bidhan Nagar Police Station to lodge a complaint, but the Police there advised him to lodge it before the Coke-Oven P.S. as the incident had occurred under their jurisdiction. So the complainant lodged an FIR before the Coke Oven P.S. on 15.04.2013 and requested to take necessary action as early as possible. Thereafter the complainant informed the said fact to the O.P. No.1 on 18.04.2013 with the statement that all the original papers of the vehicle were kept inside it and so that complainant could not submit the papers, only the policy papers were submitted. He also deposited the claim and requested to settle it as early as possible. After that the O.P.1 verbally asked for the rest key of the vehicle and the complainant told that the key was stolen. Then the O.P. No.1 told the complainant to go to the Coke Oven P.S. and submit a copy of G.D. to them for further settlement of the claim. The complainant went there on 12.10.2015 and lodged a G.D. on the same day intimating about the stealing of the rest key of the vehicle. Then he submitted a copy of the G.D. before the O.P. No.1 on 27.10.2015 and the O.P. No.1 received it with their official seal and signature. But even after a long time, the O.P.1 did not settle the claim. Moreover, the O.P. No.1 did not bother to make a single response after fulfillment of all the requirements. After many days, all of a sudden, the O.P. No.1 sent a letter dated 24.06.2016 to the complainant stating that on several occasions the complainant was requested to submit the rest one key of the concerned vehicle which was required to process the claim and as it was not submitted the O.Ps were not in a position on to settle the above theft claim and the claim was closed.
OP-1 contested the case by filing written version denying all the allegations made by the complainant. The case of the OP-1 is that on several occasion the complainant was requested to submit the rest one No. key of the concerned vehicle in question required processing the claim, but the complainant has not submitted to this OP till date. So the OP-1 was not in a position to settle the alleged theft claim and the claim file was closed accordingly and the said fact was duly informed to the complainant vide letter No. 51202/Claim, dated 24.06.2016. In theft case the claim file must contain (i) all the vehicular documents in original. In case original documents have been lost along with the vehicle, please obtain the extract of the same, duly attested by the Surveyor/Claim Processing Office, (ii) both the keys of the vehicle, if any key is lost in any manner, he supporting proof of documents, i.e. reporting to the police and intimation to the Insurer, (iii) purchase invoice of the vehicle, (iv) Final Police Report confirming the theft as genuine and duly endorsed by the competent Court of Law. The OP-1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The O.P. No.2 though received the notice, neither appeared nor submitted written version to contest the case. Hence, the case is heard ex parte against the OP-2.
-: Decision with Reasons :-
In this case, the O.P. No.1 has not denied the incident of theft of the vehicle of the complainant. But the Insurance Company did not settle the claim of the complainant on the ground as the rest one No. key of the concerned vehicle which is required to process the claim is not submitted to them by the complainant. So, they are not in a position to settle the above theft claim and the claim is closed.
In this context the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal reported in 2008 (4) Supreme 60, wherein in the para-13 it is held that ‘in the case in hand, the vehicle has been snatched or stolen. In the case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane. The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer. The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis. The Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft.’
Having regard to the above-mentioned judgement we are of the view that the Insurance Company cannot repudiate/non-settle the claim of the complainant due to non-submission of rest one No. key of the vehicle in question, the claim ought to be settled on non-standard basis and the complainant is thus entitled to the 75% of the sum insured. Thus, the complaint succeeds in part.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the Consumer Complaint being No. 125/2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP-1 and ex parte against the OP-2 in part with a direction to O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 pay either jointly or severally to the complainant 75% of the insured amount i.e. Rs. 33,750=00 with interest @6% per annum from the date of complaint till payment. The Ops are further directed to pay either jointly or severally Rs. 2,000=00 as litigation cost to the complainant. The above-mentioned award should be complied by the OPs either jointly or severally within 45 days from the date of passing of this award, in default, the complainant is at liberty to put the award in execution as per provisions of law.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me: (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
(Tapan Kumar Tripathy) DCDRF, Burdwan
President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Tapan Kumar Tripathy) (Nivedita Ghosh)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan