Ld Advoactes for both parties are present. Judgement is ready, it is pronounced in open Commission in 4 pages 2 separate sheets of paper.
BY - SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the complainant’s case are thatthe complainant is permanently residing under the jurisdiction of this Commission and his address is described in the cause title. The complainant is a simple, innocent and peace loving citizen.
The complainant is the owner of motor cycle being No. WB-30AF/3905(Bajaj Pulsar 22OF) and he has purchased a policy of Insurance from O.P.s vide policy No. OG-20-2422-1826-00001225 (Engine No. DKYCKH50695, Chassis No. MD 2A13EYOKCH70344) for the period from 28.12.2019 to 27.12.2020 and the said vehicle was stolen on 14.07.2020 from his Garage in front of his house.The complainant informed the matter to the Nandakumar Police Station about the theft of his motor cycle vide Nandakumar P.S. F.I.R. No. 218/20 dt. 18.07.2020 u/s. 379 I.P.C. and the I.O. of the said case submitted charge sheet against the accused persons.The complainant has submitted all the documents to the O.P.s but the O.P.s did not release the claim of compensation to the complainant.The Advocate of the complainant sent a regd. Letter dt. 20.09.2021 to O.P.s to release the compensation in favour of the complainant but the O.P.s did not care to settle the claim of complainant. The complainant submits the O.P.s are not diligent rather negligent to render the service to the complainant as such the complainant claiming benefit of the policy. The complainant faced loss/damage which has been caused by O.P.s and unfair acts and deficiency of service by O.P.s resulting loss of Rs. 1, 05,210/- plus interest from the date of filing of the petition plus litigation cost. The cause of action arose on and from 08.10.2021 when the O.P.s refused to make payment for claim of compensation. Therefore, the complainant most humbly prays for an order to give Rs. 1,05,218 plus interest from the date of filing this petition plus litigation cost from the Ops.
Notices were duly served. The OPs have contested the case by filing written version stating inter alia that they deny all the allegations, averments stated in the complaint filed by the complainant except to the extent they are expressly admitted therein. The non-traversal on any paragraph should be read as categorical denial. The present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action ever arose in favor of the complainant and against the opposite party insurance company to file the present complaint and hence, the complaint under reply is an abuse of the process of law and as such the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. The complainant had purchased one insurance policy being No. OG-20-2422-1826-00001225 from opposite party. The said policy was issued subject to terms, conditions and exclusions thereof.The complainant had intimated his loss which happened on 14.07.2020, intimated to the opposite party on 25.07.2020. After receipt of intimation, opposite party had sent letters dt. 09.12.2020, 16.12.2020, 28.12.2020, 14.01.2021 by registered post to the complainant requesting him to submit letter of indemnity in Rs. 500/- stamp paper(notarized), consent letter in Rs. 100 stamp paper (notarized), letter of subrogation in Rs. 500 stamp paper (notarized), final police report/non-traceable report within 7 days of the receipt of the letter, otherwise his claim will be closed at the end of opposite party. But the complainant neither exhibited any positive response nor submitted requisite documents to the opposite party towards settlement of his claim. In view of the above due to non-cooperation and non-submission of documents opposite party closed the claim of the complainant without payment and the claim stands repudiated. Confirmation of repudiation has been sent to the claimant by letter dt. 21.01.2021 by registered post. The relevant contents of the said letter are reproduced below for ready reference.
“This is with reference to your reported Theft Claim & our repeated Reminder-letters dated 09.12.2020, 16.12.2020, 28.12.2020, 07.01.2021 and 14.01.2021 to which you have neither exhibited any positive response nor requisite documents was submitted towards settlement of your claim. In view of above due to non-cooperation and non-submission of documents it is presumed that you are not interested to pursue the claim.
Hence, your claim stands closed without payment.”
According to ops the present complaint is frivolous and vexatious and ridden with allegations of deficiency in services but the present complaint miserably fails to co-relate the facts and incidents in order to prove any deficiency in service. Complainant failed to prove any act as alleged in the whole of the complaint that points out and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party insurance company. Hence the present complaint is not maintainable.
Points for determination are:
- Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?
- Is the complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?
Decision with reasons
Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.
We have carefully perused and assessed the affidavit of the complainant, written version filed by ops, evidence of both parties and other documents.
Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case it is evident that the complainant being a consumer has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the ops- ; the bundle of facts indicate that this case is maintainable in its present form and in law.
In the instant case the complainant has stated that he is the owner of motor cycle being No. WB-30AF/3905(Bajaj Pulsar 22OF) and he has purchased a policy of Insurance from O.P.s vide policy No. OG-20-2422-1826-00001225 (Engine No. DKYCKH50695, Chassis No. MD 2A13EYOKCH70344) for the period from 28.12.2019 to 27.12.2020 and the said vehicle was stolen on 14.07.2020 from his Garage in front of his house. The complainant informed the matter to the Nandakumar Police Station about the theft of his motor cycle vide Nandakumar P.S. F.I.R. No. 218/20 dt. 18.07.2020 u/s. 379 I.P.C. and the I.O. of the said case submitted charge sheet against the accused persons. But in support of his ownership of the said motorbike the complainant failed to furnish any Registration Certificate. He purchased the policy of Insurance from O.P.s w.e.f 28.12.2019 however he could not assign any valid reason as to why he could not obtain any Registration Certificate even after 7 months ie the till the date of alleged theft. Coming to the contents of the certified copy of Nandakumar P.S. F.I.R. No. 218/20 dt. 18.07.2020 u/s. 379 I.P.C. and results of investigation ie Charge sheet it appears that the investigation officer seized another chasis of motor cycle which has no similarity with the alleged stolen motor bike; the investigation officer did not observe any where that the allegation of theft is at all true. The investigation officer travelled beyond the subject matter of the concerned FIR , for the reason best known to him. The Complainant has not prayed for re-investigation of the case. The Investigation Officer has not observed the facts of the FIR is true. It is the prima facie duty of the complainant to prove the ownership of the vehicle then to establish the allegation of theft; the complainant has failed on both the counts.
On the other hand, the ops have been able to establish that the complainant had intimated his loss which happened on 14.07.2020, intimated to the opposite party on 25.07.2020 ie after 11 days of the incident. After receipt of intimation, opposite party had sent letters dt.09.12.2020, 16.12.2020, 28.12.2020, 14.01.2021 by registered post to the complainant requesting him to submit letter of indemnity in Rs. 500/- stamp paper (notarized), consent letter in Rs. 100 stamp paper (notarized), letter of subrogation in Rs. 500 stamp paper (notarized), final police report/non-traceable report within 7 days of the receipt of the letter, otherwise his claim will be closed at the end of opposite party. But the complainant neither exhibited any positive response nor submitted requisite documents to the opposite party towards settlement of his claim. In view of the above due to non-cooperation and non-submission of documents opposite party closed the claim of the complainant without payment and the claim stood repudiated. The Complainant has failed to show that the act of repudiation was not valid. Thus, complainant has failed to establish the elements of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice against the ops. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
Both the points are decided accordingly.
Thus, the complaint case does not succeed.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That the CC/126 of 2021 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs. No order as to costs is passed.
Let a copy of the judgment be supplied to each of the complainant and the OPs free of cost.
