KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI

This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, preferred against the judgment and order dated 19/06/2019, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Uttar Dinajpur in CC No. 02/2018.

Brief facts of the appellant case are that, the appellant being the registered owner of TVS Motorcycle (Fhonix 125 CC) bearing no. WB-60 L/0393 and engine No. CF 4 FF 1085490, registered by the RTO, Uttar Dinajpur and insured by the, respondent insurance company, vide policy no. 09060531150160139766 with validity from 09/08/2015 to 08/08/2016, was found missing on 11/01/2016, at about 6:30am, from the residence of the appellant and the grill lock was also broken. The appellant had then lodged a complaint before the Kaliyaganj police station on 11/01/2016 and Kaliyaganj PS case no. 12/2016 dated 11/01/2016, under Section 379 of the IPC, had been registered against unknown miscreants. The IO of the case, after a long gap failed to recover the stolen bike and finally submitted final report, being Kaliyaganj FRT no. 131/2016 dated 27/05/2016. After collection of the necessary documents, the appellant filed a written complaint by registered post to the respondent insurance company at Raiganj branch on 03/01/2016. Inspite receiving the complaint, the respondent insurance company did not respond to the appellant’s claim petition. The appellant then met respondent no. 2 at his office, but the respondent no. 2 did not respond and did nothing to settle the claim in the appellant’s favour. Finding no other alternative, the appellant filed the instant case with necessary prayers. Hence this case.

The respondent insurance company appeared to contest the claim by filing written version, wherein they have denied the appellant’s case on the ground, that the alleged theft had occurred on 11/01/2016, whereas the policy had been renewed for a further period from 09/08/2016 to 08/08/2017. That apart by unnecessarily delaying the intimation of theft to the respondent insurance company, the appellant violated the condition of the policy, as such the impugned order should be up held.

The appellant examined himself and was cross examined by the respondent insurance company who did not adduce evidence and on the basis of such examination and after hearing the Ld. Advocate for the complainant, the Ld. DCDRF, Uttar Dinajpur, passed the impugned order dismissing the case without costs.

Decision with reasons

At the time of final hearing, Ld. Advocate for the appellant had assailed the impugned judgment on the ground, that the judgment was bad in law and has relied on the judgments passed in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ajit Pal and others reported in 2019 CJ 357(NC), Amalendu Sahu Vs. Oriental Insurance Company, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil appeal no. 2703 of 2010 and Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General insurance, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil appeal no. 15611 of 2017 and prays for setting aside the impugned order.

Ld. Advocate for the respondents has submitted, that the impugned judgment had rightly demolished the plea of the appellant while trying to explain the delay, as well as the violation of the condition of the policy for not reporting, the theft immediately as was required. It is also argued, that the district of Uttar Dinajpur, was a border district, as such it was very easy to claim compensation by transferring the vehicle to the bordering country. He has relied in the judgment passed in Bhartiya Samajik Vikas Samitee Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. And others reported in III(2017) CPJ 49 NC and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Parvash Chander Chadha in Civil appeal no. 6739 of 2010, and prays for affirming the impugned judgment.

After hearing both the sides an on perusal of the materials on record, it transpires that the factual aspects of the case is not in dispute, the only legal point, that has not been considered by the impugned judgment is whether the appellant is entitled to any compensation on a non- standard basis. In this regard, the appellant has relied in the judgment mentioned above, but the judgment passed in Amalendu Sahu(Supra) had been passed in a case where there was a mere technical violation of the condition of the policy and for which reason the Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted compensation on non-standard basis, in favour of the consumer and therefore has no application in the instant case. In Om Prakash (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had allowed the compensation on the ground, that the consumer had given cogent reasons for the delay of 8 days and the investigator had verified the theft to be genuine. But in the instant case, the Ld. DCDRF, Uttar Dinajpur had categorically observed, that the delay had not been explained and the delay had been for more than One and Half years, for which reason, the independent verification about the genuineness of the claim could not be done. Under the circumstance the application of the ruling in the instant case, also cannot be justified. Similarly, in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in 2019 CJ 357(NC), the application of the above citation can not be done on the ground, that the facts of the citation are quiet different from the facts in the instant case. As such, there appears no legal binding to allow the appellants contention. On the other hand, the judgment relied by the respondent insurance company, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Parvash Chander Chadha in Civil appeal no. 6739 of 2010, categorically disapproves, the granting of claim on non-standard basis especially on violation of the condition of non-reporting of the theft to the insurance companies, more so, in the instant case where the delay was by more than One and Half years.

Hence in view of the observations, the prayer for the appellant can not be allowed and the instant appeal therefore, fails.

It is therefore,

Ordered

That the instant appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest but without costs.

The impugned order is hereby affirmed.

Copy of the order be handed over to the parties, free of costs.   

Copy of the order be sent to the Ld. DCDRF, Uttar Dinajpur, for necessary information.