In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.124 / 2009
1) Saikat Ghorai,
Paschim Sarpai, P.O. Anal Beria,
P.S. Contai, Dist. Purba Medinipur-721401. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Contai Branch,
LDB Building, 2nd Floor, N.S. Road,
P.S. Contai, Dist. Purba Medinipur-721401.
2) The Regional Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office,
38B, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata-71, P.S. Park Street. ---------- Opposite Parties.
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 30 Dated 10/10/2012.
The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Saikat Ghorai against the o.ps. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The case of the complainant in short is that he is the owner of he vehicle no.WB-30A-5927 (TATA SUMO). The said vehicle was insured with o.p. no.1 bearing policy no.031701/31/04/05124 (Private Car Package Policy) effecting from 20.2.05 to 19.2.06 having insurance coverage of Rs.2 lakhs for the loss of the vehicle. On 10.9.05 the in-laws family members and closed friends of his elder brother Sri Saibal Ghorai had been to Mathura under P.S. Vrindaban for excursion with the said car no. WB-30A-5927 (TATA SUMO) being driven by his driverf Lakshmi Kanta Pradhan. They started at Sukkar Sindhi Dharmashala Trust at Kishorepure, Vrindaban, Mathura for 3 days. The said car was parked nearby i.e. opposite to Bhattur Smriti Bhavan on Mathura Road in front of Mohan Tailor in duly locked condition. At about 00-45 hrs (night) on 13.9.05 the driver went for nature’s call and found his vehicle missing. He searched the vehicle at his best but could not find out. On the next following morning he went to Vrindaban P.S. to lodge FIR but police on duty refused to issue any official FIR on that date b u t told that after visiting the spot and preliminary investigation, they would issue the FIR and for that the driver had to stay there for that purpose. At last FIR could be lodged in the P.S. on 18.9.05 which was registered as Crime No.387/05 U/S 379 IPC. The incident on theft was duly informed b y him to o.p. no.1 vide letter dt.14.9.05.
Thereafter o.p. no.2 appointed one surveyor named as Apex Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. to survey and to assess the loss. Complainant had supplied all the papers / documents to the said surveyor at different point of time excepting the copy of the final police report only which could not be available by that time.
It is the case of the complainant that since the investigating officer of the Vrindaban P.S. did not make the fair investigation and also did not make any effort to trace out the stolen vehicle for th e obvious reason, as such, he had to file a writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court at Allahabad for relief which was registered as Criminal Misc. Writ Petition no.11048/2007 and ultimately it was allowed vide order dt.3.10.07 setting aside the orders directing the Ld. Magistrate for further investigation in the matter. Complainant states that in the compliance of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Allahabad, police had investigated the case and submitted the Final Report on 11.4.08 bearing no.55/08 and also the order of the C.J.M. dt.19.5.08 to that effect which speaks for loss of the vehicle due to theft. But despite repeated requests and reminders o.po,. no.1 remained silent and did not pay the legitimate claim to complainant. O.p. no.1 vide letter dt.25.11.08 had repudiated the claim on the ground of violation of policy terms and condition [limitation as used (a) hire or reward] for which he has been highly prejudiced. Complainant further states that the in-laws family members of his elder brother and some of his closed friends who had been to Mathura under P.S. Vrindaban on 10.9.05 for excursion with his said vehicle no. WB-30A-5927 (TAT SUMO) have stated by affidavit that neither they had paid any amount nor they were asked to pay any amount by the owner for the said traveling with the said vehicle at all for such excursion. Hence the case was filed by complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
Both o.p. nos.1 and 2 had entered his appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case since the complainant has got no cause of action to file the instant case.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. The contention of o.p. no.1 is that complainant is not entitled to relief on the ground that the vehicle was registered as a private car and complainant used to vehicle for hire or rewire violating the policy terms and conditions.
We have narrated the entire facts and circumstances of this case herein before. It is an admitted position that the vehicle was lost due to theft as we find from final report dt.11.4.08 bearing no.55/08 and an order of Ld. C.J.M. dt.19.5.08 to that effect.
Now the moot question centres around whether the said vehicle was actually used on hiring basis or not. From the materials on record we do not have any document and/or evidence for arriving at a decision that the vehicle was used for on hire basis and as such we hold that the repudiation cannot be construed justified and this act on the part of o.ps. amounts to deficiency in service being a service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest against the o.p. nos.1 and 2 with cost. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) only (after standard deduction as per settle principle of law) together with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation till the date of realization and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
