DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C. No. 26 of 2013
Present: Sri Rabindranath Mishra - President
Miss Sudhira Laxmi Pattanaik - Member.
Sri Chakdola Mallick - Member.
Bansidhar Swain aged about 54 years
S/O: Late Kasinath Swain
At: Main Road PO/PS: Phulbani
Dist: Kandhamal (Odisha)
Business by profession. …………. Complainant
Versus.
The Branch Manager
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd
Phulbani Branch, Phulbani
At: Bikash Plaza Market Complex.
Main Road, Phulbani
PO/PS: Phulbani Dist Kandhamal (Odisha) ………….. Opp. Party
For the Complainant: Sri Devendra Pradhan, Advocate and his Associates
For the OPP. Party : Sri N.K. Patra Advocate, Phulbani
Date of Order : 29-09-2014.
O R D E R
The case of the Complainant in short is that he was the owner of a BAJAJ Pulsur-150 Motor Cycle bearing No. OR-12A-1518 covering the period of insurance from 26-03-2010 to 25-03-2011.On 14-10-2010 at 2 p.m the said vehicle was stolen from MKCG Medical campus, Berhampur while the vehicle was kept in the medical campus and the Complainant was consulting with a doctor inside the medical. Soon after the incident the Complainant lodged an F.I.R before the I.I.C, Baidyanathpur Police Station which was registered vide PS case No. 165 dated. 14-10-2010. As the police was not able to trace out the stolen vehicle after investigation, he claimed before the Opposite Party through proper application. As the matter was not settled by the Opposite party this complaint was filed by the Complainant for a direction to the Opposite Party to settle the claim and for compensation of Rs.20,000/- along with Rs. 5, 000/- towards cost of litigation due to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.
-2-
The case of the Opposite Party as per his version is that the claim application of the Complainant dated. 25-10-2010 was registered and the Complainant was requested to file the relevant documents for the purpose. As the Complainant did not take any steps one registered letter was sent to him on 20-05-2011 to file the documents. As the Complainant submitted the key of the stolen motor cycle and all documents after lapse of 7 months from the date of intimation of the theft it was too late to settle the claim. Hence, the Opposite Party repudiated the claim on 14-06-2012 as the intimation was communicated after 11 days of the occurrence. Accordingly he prayed to dismiss the complaint as there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.
We have heard both the learned counsels appearing for the parties. We have gone through the complaint petition, the version of the Opposite parties and the documents filed by both the parties in support of their case. It is seen from the record that the Complainant lodged F.I.R on the date of theft before the I.I.C. Badyanathpur Police Station. The main point of consideration is that whether delay in reporting to the Insurer about the theft of the vehicle for 11 days is reasonable or not ? In this regard in para two of the complaint, it is stated by the Complainant:-
“The said F.I.R was registered vide P.S Case No. 165 dated 14-10-2010 and the police investigated the matter but not able to trace out the same. As per direction the Complainant awaited for some periods anticipating hope of recovery of his vehicle.”
It is submitted by the learned counsel of the Complainant that the Complainant was at Berhampur for his treatment and the office of the O.P is situated at Phulbani. So, when the vehicle was not traced out by the police at Berhampur, he came to Phulbani and intimated the fact to the Opposite Party. Hence, the delay is reasonable .The counsel of the Opposite Party contends that the delay of 11 days in reporting would be a violation of condition of the policy.
It reveals from the letter dated 14th June 2012 of the Opposite Party that he has received the claim intimation on 25-10-2010 from the Complainant. But no investigation and enquiry process was started by him immediately after getting the information that the F.I.R was lodged on the same day at Berhampur by the Complainant. The plea of delay in this case is only to avoid the liability of the Insurance Company. The letter in the month of May 2011 and June 2012 of the Opposite Party are not helpful to him, rather the same proves the deficiency in service of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party was taking steps after 7 months of the intimation and repudiated the claim after more than two years which also proves the negligence of the Opposite Parties. So, it can not be said that the claim is not reasonable.
Hence, in the above circumstances we allow the complaint. The Opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 25,300/- , the insured amount of the
-3-
vehicle to the Complainant with 8 % interest per annum from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 01-08-2013 till the date of payment. The said order shall be complied by the Opposite Party within 30 days after receipt of this order, otherwise the Complainant will be entitled to get 10% interest per annum from the Opposite Party. We are not allowing any separate compensation to the Complainant in the said situation.
The C.C is disposed of accordingly. Supply free copies of the order to both the parties.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
