Consumer Complaint No. 143 of 2016
Date of filing: 18.8.2016 Date of disposal: 05.5.2017
Complainant: Mr. Madan Tewari, S/o. Anjor Tewari, resident of Village: Dubchururia, G. T. Road, PO: Andalgram, PS: Durgapur, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 3211.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 150502 Raniganj Branch, Plot No. 408 (1st Floor), 29/A NSB Road, opposite of Ashoka Petrol Pump, PO: Raniganj, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 347.
2. The Regional Manager, national Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office, 3 Middleton Street, Post Box No. 9229, Kolkata – 700 071.
3. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Asansol, Burdwan, PIN – 713 301.
Present: Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Sukumar Mondal.
Appeared for the Opposite Party (s): Ld. Advocate, Shyamal Kumar Ganguli.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs have repudiated his legitimate insurance claim arbitrarily and illegally.
The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that his vehicle was covered under an insurance policy obtained from the Insurance Company. The insured vehicle was stolen on 10.07.2013 from the place falls within the jurisdiction of Kanksa Police Station and the Complainant accordingly intimated the incident to the concerned Police Station on 11.07.2013 and police case being no-195/2013 dated 11.07.2013 was started u/S. 379 of the IPC. As per the terms and conditions of the policy the Complainant lodged the insurance claim along with relevant documents i.e. Tax Token in original, Certified Copy of the FIR, Vehicle Particulars in original, Final Police Report in original, Policy Copy, Receipt Copy of ARTO, Asansol, Key Set (Engine+ Cabin Door), Claim Form, Temporary Permit, Xerox copy of the Challan in order to disburse the claim. But since inception of filing of the claim the Insurance Company was reluctant to settle the claim of the Complainant and intentionally dragged the matter on several pretext. As and when the Complainant visited the office of the Insurance Company, assurance was given to him that the claim will be disbursed within a very short span, but no fruitful result yielded. The Financier also started to create pressure on the Complainant for making payment of the due EMI towards loan amount, but as the Complainant did not get the claim amount, he could not pay the due EMI within specified period to the financier. All on a sudden the Insurance Company by issuing a letter dated 30.06.2015 informed the Complainant that the questioned claim does not fall within the purview for settlement and hence the Insurance Company had repudiated the claim of the Complainant as ‘No Claim’. According to the Complainant such repudiation is totally unsustainable. It is stated by the Complainant that the Kanksa Police Station had admitted the theft of the insured vehicle and inspite of filing entire relevant documents and papers, the Insurance Company had repudiated his claim illegally and in an improper manner. Thereafter the Complainant sent legal notice to the Insurance Company on 11.05.2016 requesting to settle the claim, but the Insurance Company being reluctant did not settle the same. Due to failure on the part of the Insurance Company to resolve the dispute the Complainant had to face huge monetary loss along with mental agony, pain and harassment. So the Insurance Company is under obligation to compensate the same by making payment of due compensation. As the grievance of the Complainant had not been redressed by the Insurance Company, having no other alternative the Complainant has approached before this Ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.4, 00,500=00 to him towards the IDV of the vehicle and Rs.90, 000=00 as cost and other expenses including compensation.
The petition of complaint have been contested by the OPs by filing written version contending that admittedly one policy was issued by the OPs in respect of the truck of the Complainant assessing the total value for Rs.4,00,500=00 and the policy was valid for the period from 05.01.2013 to 04.01.2014. Along with the policy copy certain terms and conditions were also issued mentioning therein that the driver must hold effective and valid driving license, there must be valid road permit for carrying any goods and it was the bounden duty of the insured to keep the vehicle under proper security and safety especially at the time of its parking. The Complainant being the owner of the insured vehicle lodged an FIR with the Kanksa Police Station on 11.07.2013 stating that the insured vehicle was stolen at about 1.00 a.m. when it was parked along with loaded with 170 sac of potato beside Parta Hotel situated at Birudiha when the driver and the khalasi parked the said truck for taking food. After completion of dinner when they came back, they could not find the said vehicle. The Complainant intimated the matter of theft to the Insurance Company on 24.07.2013. On 30.07.2013 the Complainant was requested by the OPs to provide some essential documents like Original Letter addressed to RTO regarding theft, Original RC Book, Original Tax Receipt, Driving License of the Driver along with Driver Statement, Cash Memo in Original, Original Key, Original Policy Copy, Form 29 & 30 of RTA, Original FIR & FRT, Indemnity Bond. Upon receipt of intimation the Insurance Company provided claim form and the same was filed duly filled in with the OP-1 on 19.07.2013 claiming an amount of Rs.4, 00,500=00 due to theft of the insured truck. The driver of the Complainant submitted a letter to the OP stating the fact that in the parking lot where the truck was parked the entire paper related to the truck and the key of the truck was kept inside one box in the truck which was also stolen away. The OP-1 immediately appointed an investigator who submitted the report on 31.10.2014. It the report it has been observed that ‘one piece of ignition key left in the truck so therefore it has chance to that the truck was not in proper locking condition when the driver left the truck………………..’ On 30.06.2015 the Complainant was informed about the reasons for repudiation of the claim. From the FRT it is evident that the police could not identified the culprit who had stolen the truck. On careful consideration of all the records it is revealed that the driver of the insured vehicle kept the key in the said vehicle and the left the vehicle in an unsafely condition and in this way the insured had violated the policy condition no5 which states that the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from any loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition ……….. Moreover the temporary permit of the vehicle as submitted was valid 19.07.2013 to 25.07.2013, but the date of theft was on 11.07.2013 i.e. at the time of theft the temporary permit was not in existence. The Ops have further mentioned that the driver of the said vehicle did not possess valid driving license because on the date of occurrence the driver had no valid driving license. Therefore according to the OPs the Complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the policy, so the claim of the Complainant was repudiated on cogent ground. As there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as sought for. Prayer is made by the OPs for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The Complainant has adduced evidence on affidavit along with some papers and documents. The OPs have also submitted some documents in support of their contention. The Ld. Counsel for the OPs has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC.
We have carefully perused the record; documents submitted by the contesting parties and heard argument at length advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the parties. It is seen by us that there are some admitted facts in the case in hand i.e. the vehicle of the Complainant was under the coverage of an insurance policy obtained from the Insurance Company, the policy was valid for the period from 05.01.2013 to 04.01.2014, IDV was declared for Rs.4,00,500=00, along with the policy certificate some terms and conditions was provided to the Complainant by the Insurance Company, there is mentioning that the driver of the insured vehicle must hold valid and effective driving license, the vehicle should possess valid route permit, the insured shall take care of the insured vehicle in respect of its security and safety, on 10.07.2013 the driver and khalasi of the vehicle went for dinner after parking the vehicle beside the hotel, after returning from dinner they could not find out the vehicle, searching was made, it could not be traced out, FIR lodged with the concerned Kanksa Police Station on 11.07.2013, police case started, FRT submitted, police could not identified the culprit stolen the vehicle, recovery of the vehicle could not be made by the police authority, insurance claim was lodged with the Insurance Company along with relevant papers and documents, surveyor was appointed, surveyor submitted his report, considering all papers it was opined by the surveyor that the claim is not permissible, some documents was sought for from the Complainant by the Insurance Company, out of the said required documents the Complainant could not submit the entire key set of the insured vehicle, the driver of the said vehicle submitted a letter before the Insurance Company stating therein that while they went for dinner on 10.07.2013 some vehicle related papers along with the keys of the vehicle was kept in a box and the said box was kept in the said vehicle. The allegation of the Complainant is that inspite of submitting entire relevant documents in connection with the insurance claim to the Insurance Company the OPs have repudiated his legitimate insurance claim illegally and whimsically. According to the Complainant such arbitrary repudiation of his claim can be termed as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence praying for certain reliefs this complaint is initiated by him. The case of the OPs is that as the Complainant has violated the terms and the conditions of the policy, which he was under obligation to abide by the same, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as sought for. It is further stated by the OPs that repudiation of any claim cannot be termed as deficiency in service and as the repudiation was duly intimated to the Complainant by issuing letter, hence the action of the OPs cannot be termed as deficient. The OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
We have noticed that the annexure –D filed by the OPs along with their written version reveals that the driver of the said vehicle had stated in a letter, which was submitted before the Insurance Company that entire vehicle related papers and one key of the subject vehicle were in a box, which was also in the said insured stolen vehicle. From another document it is also revealed that some documents was sought for by the Insurance Company from the Complainant and out of those documents the Complainant could not submit the key of the said vehicle apart from one key of the engine and one key of the cabin door. Therefore non-submission of such important document and the letter of the concerned driver have made the picture clear that the driver of the said vehicle, who was entrusted by the Complainant, has failed to maintain safety and security of the insured vehicle as per the terms and conditions of the policy as they went for dinner after parking the vehicle keeping its key inside the vehicle. As the Complainant was under the obligation to maintain safeguard of the vehicle, but actually no measure has been taken to maintain its security, hence in our opinion the Complainant is not entitled to get any amount as sought for because the Complainant has breached the terms and the conditions of the policy, which he cannot do. For such violation of the terms the OPs have repudiated the claim of the Complainant and according to us such repudiation due to breach of the condition of the policy can never be termed as deficiency in service.
The Ld. Counsel for the OPs has argued that at the relevant point i.e. during theft of the insured vehicle there was no valid temporary route permit and the driver of the said vehicle also did not possess valid driving license. We all know that while a vehicle is on road the abovementioned two conditions/criteria should be followed strictly. But in the case in hand as due to violation of the policy condition no-5 the Complainant cannot be entitled to get any relief, hence we are no inclined to discuss on the other matters as mentioned by the OPs. The Ld. Counsel for the OPs has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of Devinder Kumar vs. National Insurance Company Limited, dated 02.04.2012, in the R.P. no-3840/2011. We have gone through the said judgment and we have noticed that the fact of the said case is almost similar and identical with the case in hand. In our view the said observation can be implemented in the case in hand. As the Complainant has failed to prove his case by adducing cogent documents, hence the complaint fails.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is dismissed on contest, however considering the facts and circumstances of the complaint there is no order as to cost.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
Dictated and corrected by me.
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) (Silpi Majumder)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
