IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.
CONSUMER CASE NO. : 119/S/2014. DATED : 09.12.2016.
BEFORE PRESIDENT : SRI BISWANATH DE,
President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.
MEMBERS : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA &
SRI PABITRA MAZUMDAR.
COMPLAINANT : SRI PRADYUT DAS,
S/O. Sri Umesh Das,
Of Vill.- Phansidewa,
P.O. & P.S.- Phansidewa,
Dist.- Darjeeling.
O.P. : THE BRANCH MANAGER,
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Siliguri Branch Office,
Malhotra Tower, 2nd Floor,
Pradhan Nagar, Hill Cart Road, Siliguri,
Dist.: Darjeeling – 734 003.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Sri Subhajit Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
FOR THE OP : Sri Kanak Lal Kundu, Advocate.
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.
The complainant’s case is that complainant’s insured vehicle was lost for which Phansidewa P.S. Case No.349/2012 was lodged. The valuation of the vehicle is Rs.6,81,553/-. The complainant lodged claim before the OP No.1. The OP No.1 settled the claim amount by Rs.4,28,387/-. The OP did not pay remaining i.e., Rs.2,53,166/-. Hence this case.
The OP Insurance Company appeared and contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant. the OP’s case is that sum insured of the said vehicle was at Rs.5,73,850/-. It is stated also that the vehicle in question was parked in the open sky on the road in front of his house at night. The said vehicle was not parked in a covered garage. During investigation police seized key of the vehicle from the complainant. Another key was seized from the driver. The police filed FRT. The said was registered and insured as private vehicle. However, considering the case of the complainant, the OP insurance company allowed Rs.4,28,387/- only due to non-compliance of due diligence clause as
Contd……..P/2
-:2:-
laid down in the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Accordingly, OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.
To prove the case the complainant has field the following documents :-
1. Photocopy of Proforma invoice of the stolen vehicle of the complainant.
2. Photocopy of complaint to the RTO motor vehicle department Siliguri dated 12/12/2013.
3. Photocopy of blue book of the stolen vehicle.
4. Photocopy of complaint dated 23.12.2013 written to the O.C., Phansidewa P.S.
5. Photocopy of FIR, seizure list and final report in regard to Phansidewa P.S. Case No.349/2013 corresponding to G.R. No.2949/2013.
6. Photocopy of reference letter dated 18/02/2014 issued by SDO, Siliguri (Motor Vehicle) to O.C., Motor Theft Squads.
7. Photocopy of insurance certificate of motor theft vehicle.
8. Photocopy of legal notice dated 26/05/2014 along with postal receipt issued to the OP
OP has filed the following documents :-
A) Policy schedule cum certificate of Insurance bearing policy No.51230131120100007608 valid from 04.01.2013 to 03.01.2014 issued in the name of Pradyut Das along with the private car package policy containing the terms and conditions etc.
B) Registration certificate (R.C. Book) of vehicle No.WB-74AA/1170.
C) F.I.R. lodged by the complainant to the Officer-In-Charge, Phansidewa Police Station.
D) Final report submitted by the Phansidewa policy vide Final Report No.416/13 dated 03.12.2013 in Phansidewa P.S. case No.349 dated 01.09.2013.
E) Department claim approval letter issued by the Deputy Manager, Kolkata Regional office of the OP.
F) Settlement offer letter dated 22.04.2014 issued by the OP to the complainant.
G) Disbursement voucher.
Complainant has filed evidence-in-chief.
OP has filed evidence-in-chief.
Complainant has filed Written Notes of Argument.
OP has filed written notes of argument.
Contd……..P/3
-:3:-
OP has filed the following citations:-
i) VOL-III (2009) CPJ 90 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
ii) VOL-IV (2004) CPJ 15 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
iii) VOL-IV (2008) CPJ 1 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
iv) VOL-III (2014) CPJ 184 NATIONAL COMMISSION.
v) VOL-I (2014) CPJ 252 HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE COMMISSION.
vi) VOL-I (2009) CPJ 6 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
vii) VOL-I (2012) CPJ 488 NATIONAL COMMISSION.
Points for determination
1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP ?
2. Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
Decision with reason
Both issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.
From the record, it appears that the sum insured for the vehicle (Annexure-A) is for Rs.5,73,750/- and the OP insurance company deducted 25% for not keeping the vehicle in a safe condition. This is laid down in Private Car Package Policy Section – 1 as per condition annexed to the Annexure-I.
On the other hand the complainant did not file any acceptable paper to calculate the price of the vehicle. Only estimate from Khokon Motor Works Pvt. Ltd. Proforma invoice dated 29.12.2012 has been filed which shows the price Rs.6,81,553/-.
Perused the other papers filed by the parties mainly Annexure-E by which the claim has been settled at Rs.4,28,387/- vide letter dated 31.03.2014.
So, from the documents, as stated above, we are not in a position to find and hold any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Rather complainant did not accept the said sum without any reason.
Therefore, we are of opinion that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the Consumer Case No.119/S/2014 is dismissed on contest against the OP but without cost.
Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.
