Tripura

Gomati

CC/6/2022

Smt Purnima Dey - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Jayanta Prasad Dey

18 Oct 2023

ORDER

 

  J U D G M E N T

 

                        Genesis of this case is a complaint preferred by the complainant Smt. Purnima Dey under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (Act in short hereinafter) against the opposite party praying for compensation to the tune of Rs.76,000/- and also for Rs.50,000/- and Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and litigation cost respectively.      

2.                     The facts as pleaded in the plaint are that the complainant is a consumer of OP Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. On 13.04.2021 she got her two wheeler (Honda Activa 125 Scooty) bearing No.TR-03-L-6791 insured with the OP by entering into an agreement vide No.202022123750001801 w.e.f. 13.04.2021 to 12.04.2026  with the condition that the OP will pay/indemnify Rs.76,000/- in case of theft/accident or any other damage to the said scooty. It is stated that unfortunately on 17.10.2021 the said scooty of the complainant was stolen from the courtyard of her house and she filed one FIR in the R.K.Pur P/S which was registered R.K.Pur P/S Case No.75 of 2021. Thereafter, as per terms of the policy the complainant made claim before the OP which was registered vide Insurance Claim No.3221001903. After that it was informed to the complainant from the side of the OP that her Insurance Claim No.  3221001903 was repudiated for breach of condition No.4/5 of the Motor Vehicles Insurance Policy. According to the complainant it is mentioned in the condition No.4/5 of the Motor Vehicles Insurance Policy as cause of proximate theft. After investigation police submitted charge-sheet showing that it was a incident of theft. After receipt of communication from the OP on 07.02.2022, on numerous occasions the complainant approached the OP  for compensation but the OP did not satisfy her claim. According to the complainant, by not paying the insurance claim to the complainant, the insurance company failed to discharge their obligation in terms of the agreement and thereby deficiency of service on the part of the OP is caused. Finally, the complainant approached the forum for redress claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.76,000/- excluding Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and Rs.20,000/-  as litigation cost.

 

3.                     On receipt of the notice, the OP appeared and contested the case by filing written statement denying the allegations made by the complainant. It is stated by the OP that they already informed the complainant that her claim No.3221001903 was repudiated for breach of condition No.4/5 of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Policy. They denied the allegation of deficiency of service raised by the complainant against them. The complainant violated the condition of the policy and no deficiency of services caused on their part. According to them, the present claim petition filed by the complainant is liable to be rejected.

 

 4.                    The complainant Smt. Purnima Dey examined herself as PW.1. In her examination-in-chief on affidavit she recapitulated the facts that has been stated in the complaint and as such, for the sake of brevity the same is not recapitulated. However, during re-examination, the PW.1 has exhibited the following documents on comparison with the originals :-

                          1. Copy of registration certificate of two wheeler bearing No. TR-03-L-6791 – Ext.P1,

                        2. Certified copy of FIR and ejahar in connection with Kakraban P/S Case No.75 of 2021 – Ext.P2,

                        3. Certified copy of Final Report in connection with Kakraban P/S Case No.75 of 2021 – Ext.P3,

                        4. Insurance certificate of two wheeler bearing No. TR-03-L-6791 – Ext.P4,

                        5. Money receipt/Tax invoice of TR-03-L-6791 (Honda Activa 125 Scooty) – Ext.P5,

                        6. Sale certificate of  TR-03-L-6791 (Honda Activa 125 Scooty) – Ext.P6 and

                        7. Vehicle particulars for internal use of TR-03-L-6791 (Honda Activa 125 Scooty) – Ext.P7.

 

                        In cross-examination she denied the suggestion that her claim is not maintainable or that the story of theft is baseless or there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite-party.

 

5.                     On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the opposite-party.

 

6.                     Heard argument of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties.

 

7.                     The points required to be adjudicated in this case are as follows:

                                    (i) Whether the complainant is a consumer  of the opposite-party ;

                                    (ii)Whether there was any foul play occurred from the                                      side of opposite-party ;

                                    (iii)Whether the complainant is entitled the amount as                                                 prayed for ;

 

 DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

 

8.                     All the points are taken up together for discussion.

 

9.                     There is no dispute of the fact from the side of the opposite-party that the complainant is not their consumer.

 

10.                   According to the complainant her two wheeler bearing No. TR-03-L-6791 was insured with the opposite-party covering the period from 13.04.2021 to 12.04.2026 and in the mean time i.e. on 17.10.2021 the two wheeler was stolen and on this she filed ejahar before the R.K.Pur P/S. Thereafter, she informed the matter to the opposite party and made a claim for compensation and her claim was registered vide Insurance Claim No.3221001903. But her claim was repudiated by the OP for breach of condition No.4/5 of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Policy.  The matter of repudiation of her claim was informed by the OP to the complainant by issuing a letter. According to her on several occasions she approached the OP to settle the claim but of no result.

 

11.                   Ext.P2, the FIR lodged by the complainant shows that she informed the matter to the police on 22.10.2021 and on her complaint police registered a case vide R.K.Pur P/S Case No.75 of 2021. Police after investigation filed charge-sheet (Ext.P3) under Section 382D/34 of IPC against the bike lifters. So, it is clear from the police investigation that the two wheeler bearing no. TR-03-L-6791 of the complainant was lifted by the bike lifters. The tax invoice (Ext.P5) with invoice No.1814 dated 13.04.2021 issued by M/S AISHI MOTORS in favour of the complainant shows that the complainant Smt. Purnima Dey purchased the Activa 125  Scooty @ Rs.76,766/-. Ext.P1 (vehicle particulars, for internal use) issued by the Registering Authority, Gomati DTO (Tripura) confirms that the complainant Smt. Purnima Dey was the registered owner of the two wheeler bearing No. TR-03-L-6791 having Chasis No.ME4JF49LBMW003429. The Ext.P1 also confirms the fact that the two wheeler No. TR-03-L-6791 had got insurance from Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. w.e.f. 13.04.2021 to 12.04.2026 vide Policy No.202022123750001801. The Insurance policy certificate under Ext.P4 also confirms the fact that the two wheeler of the complainant with chasis No. ME4JF49LBMW003429 is insured with the OP Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd covering the period from 13.04.2021 to 12.04.2022 vide Policy No.202022123750001801. 

 

12.                   In this instance case, it is the duty of the insurance company to pay money to the insured complainant in respect of her stolen two wheeler if the complainant satisfies all the requirements. Therefore in case the complainant has satisfied all the requirements, then the insurance company has to pay the amount of insured money. In case of failure by the insurance company to pay the money, the complainant has reasonable ground to claim that there is deficiency in service.

 

13.                   This Commission has minutely perused the exhibited documents including the policy document submitted by the complainant. The complainant has clearly established the fact that her two wheeler bearing No. TR-03-L-6791 was stolen and the it was insured with the OP Reliance General Insurance Company and the incident of heft occurred within the period of insurance coverage. Situated thus, the OP Insurance Company cannot ignore the payment of compensation to the complainant.

 

14.                   It was argued by the Ld. Counsel of the OP Insurance Company that there was breach of condition No.4/5 of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Policy on the part of the complainant and for that the claim of the complainant was repudiated. The burden of proving their case is with the OP Insurance Company but they failed to discharge their burden by adducing documentary or oral evidence showing that the breach of condition No.4/5 was caused by the complainant. So, the OP failed to substantiate their case by adducing evidence.

 

 15.                  Therefore on the basis of the discussion made herein above it is clear that the Reliance General insurance company should pay compensation amount to the complainant and nonpayment of such amount to the complainant is “deficiency in service”. 

 

16.                  The price of the stolen two wheeler was Rs. 76,000/-(Rupees Seventy-six Thousand) as reflected in the insurance policy.

 

17.                  Therefore considering this matter in its entirety it will be appropriate to decide that the insurance company should pay amount of Rs.76,000/-(Rupees Seventy-six Thousand) as the price of the insured motor cycle. The complainant is also found entitle to litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) and in the opinion of this Commission, the complainant is also found entitled to an amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) for deficiency in service. Therefore in total the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Udaipur branch shall pay amount of Rs.91,000.- (Rupees Ninety-one Thousand).   

                        Two Wheeler price-     Rs. 76,000/-

                        Litigation cost -                Rs. 10,000/-

                        Deficiency in Service- Rs. 5,000/- 

                        Total Rs. 91,000/- (Rupees Ninety-one Thousand).

 

18.                    The party is not fund entitle to any other relief or reliefs.

 

O R D E R

 

19.                   In the result, the prayer of the  petitioner is allowed and the Opposite Party Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., insurer of vehicle No. TR-03-L-6791 is directed to pay total compenation of Rs.91,000/- (Rupees Ninety-one Thousand) including the price of insured Two Wheeler of Rs.76,000/-, litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency in service. The OP is also directed to make payment of the compensation to the complainant within two months from today failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the same.   

                        Accordingly, the case is disposed of.

                        Enter the result in the relevant register.

                        Supply a copy of the judgment to the parties free of cost.

                         

A N N O U N C E D.