IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 21/S/2014.                      DATED : 03.02.2016.            

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

                      MEMBERS              : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA &

                                                              SRI PABITRA MAJUMDAR.

COMPLAINANT                 : SRI RANJIT MODOK @ RAJIT,  

                                                  S/O Late R. K. Modok,

  B.R.I. Colony, Pradhan Nagar,

  P.O. & P.S.- Pradhan Nagar, Siliguri,

  Dist.- Darjeeling.

O.Ps.             1.                            : THE BRANCH MANAGER,

National Insurance Company Ltd.,

Siliguri Branch II, Pratap Market,

2^nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Siliguri, Pin – 734 405.

2.                     : THE SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

  National Insurance Co. Ltd.,

  Divisional Office, Ganesh Ram Compound,

  Hill Cart Road, Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling. 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Kamal Dey, Advocate.

J U D G E M E N T

Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.

The complainant’s case in brief is that the complainant’s case in brief is that his vehicle no.73A/4484 is a goods carrier, and it was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. (i.e., the OPs) for the period from 24.07.2008 to 23.07.2009.  On 20.03.2009 his driver Parimal Sarkar, while on a journey towards Kathambari, took some drinks at the request of some fellow passengers, and he became senseless, and the vehicle was stolen.  Next day, when the driver regained consciousness, he informed the complainant about the matter over telephone.  The driver Parimal Sarkar lodged complaint before the O.C., Kranti Police Out Post under Mal P.S., Dist.-Jalpaiguri, on 22.03.2009, and a case was started accordingly.  The complainant informed OP

Contd…….P/2

-:2:-

No.1 about the theft on 26.03.2009.  At the relevant time, the original documents, and two sets of keys were kept in the vehicle, and the complainant was unable to produce the original documents on time.  The OP No.1 asked the complainant to produce some documents, along with final investigation report of the police.  The complainant submitted certified copies of all the documents, but he could not obtain report of the police investigation, since the investigation was incomplete.  However, the police submitted charge sheet/final report on 31.07.2011 before the Ld. C.J.M., Jalpaiguri.  The complainant requested the OP No.1 for some time to file the original documents.  On 21.12.2011, the complainant submitted all the documents along with application for his insurance claim to the insurer, and the OP No.1 assured him that his claim would be settled.  However, the OP No.1 failed to make the required payment, and when the complainant enquired about the matter, the OP No.1 assured him that his file would be reopened.  On 09.01.2014, the complainant wrote a letter to the OP No.1 requesting settlement of his claim, but the OP No.1 did not pay any heed to the request. Accordingly, the complainant filed this case praying that the insurer be directed to pay him Rs.1,66,667/- being the insurance claim for the lost vehicle, and he prays for some other reliefs as well.          

OP Nos.1 & 2 filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant.  The contention of OPs is that the vehicle was insured.  They were informed regarding theft of the vehicle.  But both the keys of the vehicle were not submitted to the OPs.  The OPs submitted that the insured had deposited all documents only on 21.12.2011 i.e., more than 21 months after closure of the claim file on 15.03.2010.  But they did not write the reason of closure of claim file on 15.03.2010.  The police authority was informed after theft and the investigation was going on.  Categorically OPs admitted the theft of the vehicle.  But they were in suspicious condition as to why the two keys of the vehicle were kept in the vehicle (para 11 of W.V.).  Again they stated in 13 both the keys of the vehicle have not submitted till date nor mentioned anywhere the FIR of having stolen along with the vehicle.  In the same para no.13 OPs stated that I.O. submitted charge sheet before the ACJM, Jalpaiguri on 31.07.2011 (para 13 of W.V.).  So, it is their duty now in spite of knowing the total case of theft what insisted the OP to close claim file on

Contd…….P/3

-:3:-

15.03.2010.  This precise crème of OPs’ case against the claim of complainant shows that the OPs are always busy in closing the claim of public in spite of making insurance policy.  The OP has filed elaborate written averments full of verbose repeating same fact again and again and finally they submitted for dismissal of the complaint.            

Points for decision

1.       Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?

2.       Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?               

Complainant has filed the following documents :-

1.       Original certificate copy of the Registration Book of the Vehicle along with Tax Book.

2.       Non use certificate from R.T.O.

3.       Letter addressed to R.T.O. for the use Non use Certificate.

4.       Original Insurance Policy.

5.       Original certified copy of police F.I.R., Final Investigation Report.

6.       One set of keys along with G.D.E.    

          OP Nos. 1 & 2 have filed the following documents :-

A.      Policy schedule issued in the name of the complainant along with Commercial Vehicles package Policy containing the terms, conditions, exclusions etc. 

B.      Letter dated 12,01,2010 issued by the OP. Insurance Company to the complainant.

C.      Letter dated 05.03.2010 issued by the O.P. Insurance Company to the complainant.

D.      Letter dated 15.03.2010 issued by the O.P. Insurance Company to the complainant.

E.      OPs have also filed some rulings.   

Complainant has filed examination-in-chief by affidavit.

Complainant has filed written notes of Argument.

OPs have filed evidence-in-chief by affidavit. 

OPs have filed written notes of Argument.

Contd…….P/4

-:4:-

Decision with reason.

          All the issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.

From the argument of the complainant it appears that the complainant has taken sufficient step after theft and they have knocked to the OPs door for claiming as they have valid insurance policy.  It is not denied by the OPs that the complainant has not valid policy or the complainant did not make information to police authority or to the insurance company.  In spite of knowing their duties and liabilities as laid down in the insurance policy, they remained silence and passed many days in a peaceful sleeping ignoring the anxiety of the complainant, wherein the appropriate investigating authority have filed Charge-Sheet after enquiry as per procedure laid down in Criminal Procedure Code. 

In the written argument filed the complainant stated in para 10 that the OP proposed Rs.1,25,000/- for settlement, but that has not been accepted by the complainant.  The OP advanced argument in para 19 to show that the information to police authority was late by two days or in sometime more than two days.  In the same para 19 the OP stated that the OP Insurance Company was totally deprived of its legitimate right to make an interfere to recover the stolen vehicle through recovery agency and delaying FIR deprived the police opportunity of immediate action to investigate and try to recover the vehicle.  The merely delaying of two days or six days in lodging FIR before the police authority or before the Insurance Company is totally negligible and can be easily condoned.  There are large catenas of decision pronounced by the Apex Court of the land that information to the police officer is reasonable and immediate even if it is made within seven or more days.  FIR is nothing but an information to the policy autho6ty regarding a cognigible offence.  In this instant case in our hand scrutinization of charge-sheet and other documents, evidence, inspire confidence in the mind of this Forum that the claim of complainant is free from all kind of doubt and the deficiency of service and negligence work of the insurance company mainly those who are in charge of dealing with such cases is under utter negligence and without showing any respect for the benefit of the common public.  The antecedent and proceedings of this case obviously shows that OPs are liable for gross negligence by not

Contd…….P/5

-:5:-

allowing the prayer of the complainant as per their own argument and own averments in Written Version.  The net result is that the all issues succeed in favour of the complainant. 

Now it is necessary to calculate the amount of compensation laid down in the plaint.                         

The complainant has filed this case directing the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.1,66,667/- as his legitimate claim for lost of vehicle, along with other compensation. 

After going through the claim of the complainant, and averments of OPs, this Forum is of opinion that complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,66,667/- for lost of his vehicle from OP Nos.1 & 2. 

The complainant has also prayed for compensation for mental pain, agony, harassment.

The complainant has come before the Forum on 18.02.2014. 

The OP Nos.1 & 2 appeared, but did not solve the legal claim of complainant, resulting mental pain, agony and harassment of complainant.  The act and conduct of OP Nos.1 & 2 is itself a proof of deficiency in service i.e., res ipsa liquitor which means that the act is sufficient proof of negligence and deficiency in service.  Section 14 of the C.P. Act, empowers this Forum to make adequate compensation to the aggrieved consumers.

On the premise above, the material on record, it inspires confidence in the mind of Forum that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.10,000/- for compensation towards mental, pain, agony and harassment. 

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.5,000/- for cost of litigation. 

The complainant is further entitled to get 9 % interest on the awarded sum from the date of filing of this case till full payment. 

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence, it is

                     O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No. 21/S/2014 is allowed on contest against the OP Nos.1 & 2. 

The complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,66,667/- for lost of his vehicle from OP Nos.1 & 2.

Contd…….P/6

-:6:-

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment caused by the OP Nos.1 & 2.

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.5,000/- for litigation cost from the OP Nos.1 & 2.

The complainant is further entitled to get 9 % interest on the awarded sum of Rs.1,76,667/- from the OP Nos.1 & 2 from the date of filing of this case till full payment. 

The OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to pay Rs.1,66,667/- for lost of his vehicle by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant within 45 days of this order.

 The OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for mental pain, agony and harassment within 45 days of this order.

OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for litigation cost within 45 days of this order.

OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are further directed to pay 9 % interest on the awarded sum of Rs.1,76,667/- to the complainant from the date of filing of this case till full payment. 

In case of default of payment, the complainant is further entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded sum of Rs.1,76,667/- from the date of filing of this case till full realization. 

In case of default, the complainant is at liberty to execute this order through this Forum as per law. 

Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.