West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/2/2019

Sri Dibendyu Saha, S/O- Mr. Kalipada Saha - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Smt. Peu Bhattacharjee

09 Feb 2021

ORDER

Repudiation of Insurance claim by the OP Company has galvanized the policyholder i.e. the complainant to file this instant case u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the O.P.

 

The brief fact of the complaint case is that the complainant is the registered owner of a motor cycle Bajaj Discover 125cc bearing no W.B.62–D/1326 was stolen on 16/12/2016 at about 08.30. On 16/12/2019 in the evening the complainant lock his vehicle and keep it outside of his house and went inside the house. After half an hour, he came out and found that the aforesaid motor cycle was missing from there. Then he informed the matter to Balurghat police station but police refused to received the complaint on 16/12/16 and told him to search the vehicle but all are in vail. But the police received the GDE on 19/12/2016 bearing no.1264 . The matter of theft was also informed on 16/12/2016 to the O.P. by mobile through his agent. But the O.P. did not take any action. After receiving the GDE copy on 19/12/16 complainant informed the matter to the O.P. in writing on 21/12/16. Then he applied before the O.P. insurance company for getting the declared insured value of Rs 44000/- due to the theft of motor cycle which was mentioned in the policy vide no 150703/31/15/6200013362 dt 26/02/2016. But after the lapse of two years the o.p. insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant by a letter dt 10/12/2018 on the ground that there is late intimation to police as well as insurance..It is also needed to mention that after receiving the GDE the Balurghat police station did not start any specific case. Then the complainant lodge a misc case before the chief judicial magistrate of Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur on 19/04/2017.Thereafter Balurghat P.S. started a specific case vide p.s. case no 283/2017 dt 05/07/2017.FRT was also submitted by the police. Repudiation of insurance claim by the O.P. has aggravated the complainant to this instant case against the O.P. directing to pay the amount of Rs 44000/- along with compensation of Rs 20,000/- and litigation cost Rs5000/-.         

      Notice was issued upon the O.P. The O.P. appeared and contested the case by filing written version wherein the material averments made in the complaint case are denied and it has been contended inter- alia that the instant case is not maintainable. It has been submitted by the opposite party that due to the late intimation to the police as well as insurance company, opportunity  to trace the motor cycle is lost. On account of   delay the claim for compensation was repudiated by the O.P. for breach of policy.

 In order to prove the case, the complainant has submitted examination –in-chief by way of affidavit together with following documents by firisti:-

1) Copy of GDE no 1264 dt 19/12/16.(original)

2) F.I.R.

3) Insurance policy.

4) Letter of repudiation (original)

5) Receive copy of the intimation to N.I.C. dt. 21/12/16 (original)

6) Information slip regarding the P.S. case no.283/17 dt. 5/5/17.

   

     Opposite party also filed the deposition –in – chief supported by affidavit together with some document by way of firisti:-

               1) Burglary & house breaking policy.

               2) Report of the investigator of N.I.C.

                   

                                        Points for discussion

               1) Is the complainant a consumer to the O.P.?

               2) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?

               3) Is the complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?

                                         Decision with reasons

Point no.1

                This is admitted fact that the complainant insured his vehicle vide registration no.WB62-D/1326 under a package policy of the O.P. vide .no150703/31/15/6200013362 dt 26/02/2017.So, there is no hesitation to hold that the complainant is a customer within the meaning of the consumer protection ACT 1986.

 

 Point no.2 & 3

                 This two points are taken up together as they are inter linked to each other. On scrutiny of the record it reveals that complainant is a registered owner  of the motor cycle which was stolen on 16/12/16 at about 08.30 pm from the front of his house .It is also admitted that complainant purchased a policy from the O.P. on 26/02/2016 and it was valid   upto 25/02/2017. The complainant had lodged the GDE vide no.1264 dt 19/12/16 with Balurghat police station. The matter of theft was also informed to the O.P. on 16/12/16 by mobile through the agent but the branch manager of the O.P. did not take any step. Then after receiving the G.D.E. copy, informed the O.P. in writing on 21/12/16.Balurghat P.S. did not start any specific case against the aforesaid G.D.E. Afterward a misc case was filed by the complainant before the chief judicial magistrate, then the police started a spicefic case.FRT was also submitted by the police. Complainant applied before the O.P. company for getting the compensation along with all the documents which are demanded by the O.P. company. But after the lapse of two years the O.P. company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that there is late intimation to the police and insurance company as held by the Honble NCDRC in the judgment of New India Assurance vs. Trilochan Jane FA no.321/2005 dt. 09/12/2009.The documents furnished by the complainant and the O.P. reveals that the theft has been committed on 16/12/2016 and the complainant lodged the GDE ON 19/12/2016 vide no.1264 and informed the insurance company i.e. the O.P. on 21/12/16.FRT was also submitted by the police in P.S. case no 283/17 dt 5/5/17. The complainant submitted his claim along with all the documents as asked by the O.P. and requested to make arrangement for the payment of the insured declared value but no suitable attempt was made on behalf of the O.P. But on 10.12.2018 after the lapse of 2 years the O.P. repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of delay. Insurance is a contract between the parties on the basis of good faith. In this context we may take refuge to the important point observed by the Honble Supreme Court of India, in the civil appeal No. 653 of 2020 and decided on 24.01.2020 If the claimant is denied merely on the ground there is some delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft, it is would be taking a hyper technical view. It would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified and found to be correct by the investigator. The Consumer Protection Act aims at protecting the interest of the consumer and it being a beneficial legislation deserves pragmatic construction [2020 (1) T.A.C. 729 (S.C)].

          Moreover the report of the investigator Mr. Abhijit Saha dt. 01.12.2017 appointed by the O.P. has admitted the fact of theft. In this context we may take refuge to the important point observed by the Honble National Commission in the revision petition No.4446 of 2009 and decided on 14.01.2015 Claim cannot be repudiated where surveyor and investigator appointed by the insurance company did not  raised any doubt about the manner of accident [2015 (1) CPR 621 (NC)]

 

          Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it has been established that complainant is a bona fide customer of the O.P. and such repudiation of the O.P. company led the complainant to file the instant case before this Commission. There is no hesitation to hold that the O.P. has neglected to discharge his duty and there is enough deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.

Thus all the issues are disposed of accordingly.    

          

Hence, it is

                                                      O R D E R E D

          that the Consumer Complaint Case No. 02 of 2019 is allowed on contest in part with cost against the O.P. The OP is directed to pay the insured declared value of Rs.44,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in favour of the complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this order failing which insured declared amount will bear interest @12% p.a. from 10.12.2018 on which date the O.P. has repudiated the claim.

          The O.P is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- towards litigation cost i.d. the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per law.

             Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.