West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/154/2017

Nishikanta Bera - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager, I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Raghunath Bhattacharya

27 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

   Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and

Sagarika Sarkar, Member. 

 

Complaint Case No.154/2017

 

                                   Nishikanta Bera, S/o Late Mantu Bera , Vill. Susinda (Deuli), P.O. Belda, P.S. Belda,

                                                                                  District - Paschim Medinipur.   

                                                                                                                    ………..……Complainant.

                                                                                                            Vs.

1. The Division Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., at 15, Park Street Apeejay House. Block B, 7^th Floor, Kolkata-700016,
2.  The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Inda, Kharagpur, District- Paschim Medinipur.

                                                                                                 .....……….….Opp. Parties.

                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Raghunath Bhattacharja, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Pinaki Sengupta, Advocate.

                                                         

                                                                                         Date of filing:31/10/2017

Decided on: - 27/04/2018

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President –This consumer complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act has been filed by the complainant Sri  Nishikanta Bera, against the O.P.-ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. alleging  deficiency in service on their part.

                Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows:-

                The complainant is a registered owner of a motor cycle vide registration no.WB-34AF-2533 and the said motor cycle was duly insured with the O.P.-Insurance Company vide policy no.3005/111370015/00/000 and the said policy is valid up to 28/12/2018.  The complainant used to keep his motor cycle in his house in the night but

                                                                                                                                             Contd……………….P/2.

 

 

                                                                              ( 2 )

unfortunately on the night of 4.4.2016, the said motor cycle was stolen away from his house by some unknown miscreants.  The complainant thereafter informed the said matter to the O.P.-Insurance Company as well as at Belda P.S. but the policy authority did not take any steps for which the complainant filed a complaint before the Ld. C.J.M., Paschim Medinipur and thereafter  Belda P.S. case no.292/16 dated 03.12.2016 u/s 461/379 I.P.C. was started.  In spite of that, police authority failed to recover the motor cycle.  Complainant submitted claim form before the O.P.-Insurance Company and they vide their letter dated 12.7.2016 and 8.11.2016 intimated the complainant that they were taking steps.  Suddenly by their letter dated 11.01.2017, the O.P.-Insurance Company intimated the complainant that they were going to close the claim and  then the complainant sent a notice on 7.09.2017 to the O.P. but the O.P.-Insurance Company failed to settled the claim of the complainant.  It is stated that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the O.P. to pay Rs.42,584/- to the complainant towards the price of the motor cycle and for other reliefs e.g. compensation and litigation cost.

                Both the opposite parties-Insurance Company have contested this case by filling a joint written version.  

                Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite parties-Insurance Company that the complainant lodged the intimation as regards theft of  his  motor cycle at Belda P.S. vide Belda P.S. case no.292/16 dated 3.12.2016 i.e.  after delay of 239 days from the date of alleged theft.  The complainant also intimated the O.P.-Insurance Company about such occurrence after lapse of 95 days without sufficient and satisfactory explanation for such delay and thereby the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy.  The complainant also did not lodge any information as regards theft of the motor cycle to the registered authority as per mandatory provision of Motor Vehicles Act.  He also did not furnish original copy of registration certificate, tax token, and insurance policy etc.  It is stated that the O.P.-Insurance Company has therefore caused no deficiency in service and they therefore claim dismissal of the complaint with cost.

             To prove his case, the complainant Nishikanta Bera has examined himself as PW-1 and the documents, relied upon the complainant, have been marked as Exbts.1 to 4 respectively.  On the other hand, O.P. adduced no evidence.

                                                                 Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?

                                                                                                                                                  Contd……………….P/3.

                                                      

                                                                                      ( 3 ) 

                                                        Decision with reasons

             Point no.1:-

    Maintainability of this case has not been questioned by any of the parties at the time of final hearing of this case.  On perusal of the pleadings of the parties we do not find anything to hold that the case is not maintainable.

   This point is therefore decided in the affirmative and in favour of the complainant.

Point no. 2:-

   Admittedly, the complainant insured his motor cycle being registration no.WB34AF2533 with the O.P.-Insurance Company vide policy no.3005/111370015/00/000 and the same was valid upto 28.12.2018.  Admittedly, after the alleged occurrence of theft of the motor cycle of the complainant on the night of 4.4.2016, the complainant lodged a claim of insurance before the O.P. and the O.P. closed the claim of insurance for non-compliance of condition 1 of the motor insurance policy by their letter dated 8.11.2016.  In the said letter, the O.P.-Insurance Company has stated that there has been a delay of ninety six days in giving notice regarding theft of the motor cycle to them.  From the cross-examination of Nishikanta Bera, the complainant, we find that in the month of December 2016, he submitted claim of insurance before the O.P.  He has stated in his cross-examination that on 4.4.2016, he submitted a written complaint before Belda P.S. regarding such theft of his motor cycle but the concerned P.S. refused to accept such complaint.  No copy of such complaint has been filed.  Admittedly the police case was started on 3.12.2016 vide Belda P.S. case no.292/2016 dated 3.12.2016.  It thus appears that there had been long delay of about 90 days in lodging complaint before the police station as well as submission of claim of insurance before the O.P.  The complainant did not give any explanation for this unusual delay in informing the O.P.-Insurance Company regarding such occurrence of theft.  In terms of the policy issued by the O.P.-Insurance Company the complainant was duty bound to inform it to the O.P. about the occurrence of theft of the vehicle immediately after the occurrence.   On account of delayed intimation, the O.P. was deprived of it’s legitimate right to get an enquiry conducted into the alleged theft of vehicle and to make an endeavor to recover the vehicle.  In view of that and since admittedly the complainant has violated the terms of the policy condition by causing long delay in intimating the occurrence of theft to the O.P., so the O.P.-Insurance Company committed no illegality in closing the claim of insurance of the complainant.  It is therefore held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.-Insurance Company.

    This point is accordingly disposed of against the complainant.

                                                                                                                                                Contd……………….P/4.

                                                      

                                                                                                ( 4 )

             Point no.3 :-

           In view of our above finding under point no.2, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief, as prayed for.                       

          All the points are accordingly disposed of.

          In the result, the complaint case fails.

                                             Hence, it is,

                                            Ordered,

                       that the complaint case no.154/2017  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                                Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

                Dictated and Corrected by me

                       Sd/-B. Pramanik.                            Sd/- S. Sarkar                            Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                             President                                       Member                                       President

                                                                                                                                  District Forum

                                                                                                                              Paschim Medinipur