DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 16th day of September, 2019
C.D Case No. 22 of 2018
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Sri Bishnu Charan Nayak
S/o Late Dadhiram Nayak
Vill: Sureswarpur,
Po: Mandari,
Ps: Basudevpur,
Dist: Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. The Divisional Manager
M/S Royal Sundaram Alianze Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Subramaniam Building, 2nd Floor,
No. 1 Club House Road, Chennai- 600002
2. The Branch Manager
M/S Royal Sundaram Alianze Insurance Co. Ltd.,
At; Padmalaya Complex, 2nd Floor,
Opposite of Bus Stand and Sahadev Khunta
Dist: Balasore- 756001
…………………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel For Complainant: Sri J. B. Agasti & Others, Adv
Counsel For the O.Ps: Sri P. Kanungo, Adv
Date of hearing: 27.02.2019
Date of order: 16.09.2019
RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT
This dispute arises out of the complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the O.Ps to the effect that the complainant is the owner of the Mahindra Bolero 2WB bearing Regd. No. OD-22A-3025 and the said vehicle was financed by Mahindra Finance Ltd. in the year 2013. The complainant ahs purchased the said vehicle for maintaining his livelihood and his family. The said Bolero was stolen on dt. 16.02.2016 when it was parking near the house of the complainant and after theft the son of the complainant has lodged FIR on dt. 17.02.2016 before the I.I.C Basudevpur Police Station after getting the information from the driver of the said vehicle Bolero and after received the FIR, the I.I.C registered a P.S Case No. 145/17 U//S 379/34 I.P.C against unknown persons and subsequently the police has submitted charge sheet against two persons namely Santosh @ Santha Dalia and Bapi @ Manoranjan Pani with regard to the theft of vehicle. Further the complainant states that the said vehicle was insured by O.Ps and the policy number is VC00113528000102 and it was valid from 09.09.2015 to 08.09.2016. As per the final reminder of the OP on dt. 06.11.2017 the complainant has complied all the original documents with regard to theft vehicle to the OP, but after complied of original documents the O.Ps did not provide the value of the theft vehicle to the complainant. After the theft the complainant informed the same matter to the O.Ps on 22.02.2016 to pay the cost of the said Bolero, but the O.Ps did not pay any heed to the grievance of the complainant. So the complainant have filed this case against the O.Ps agreed against OP No. 1 for deficiency of service. The cause of action arose on dt. 16.02.2016 when the vehicle was stolen and further the cause of action arose 17.02.2016 when the FIR was lodged the Police Station of Basudevpur. Due to the negligence and deficiency of service the complainant sustained mental agony and harassment. Hence the complainant has sought for the following reliefs as follows.
1. The O.Ps be directed to pay the cost of the vehicle which is amount to Rs 4,90,000/- along with 9% interest to the complainant from the date of filing of this case for realization of insured amount.
2. The O.Ps be directed to pay Rs 50,000/- for metal agony and other reliefs, as well as the cost of the litigation.
List of the documents filed on behalf of the complainant.
1. Photo copy of insurance policy of Royal Sundaram.
2. Photo copy of registration certificate of Mahindra Bolero bearing Regd. No. OD-22A-3205.
3. Photo copy of FIR 161 and charge sheet.
4. Photo copy of last and final reminder by the O.Ps.
5. Original Indian Postal Order (I.P.O) Rs 400/-.
The O.Ps have filed their written version as follows:-
The O.Ps have denied all the averments made in the Para No. 1 to 14. The fact is that the complaint is lacking in bona-fide cause of action and is premature. Complainant has not filed the claim documents. So it is not possible for the O.Ps to determine the admissibility of the claim and hence the said documents were sought from the complainant. However, instead of complying with the requirement, the complainant has filed instant complaint directly with an oblique motive to bypass the claims procedure as mandated by the policy terms and conditions and to get the claim amount. For the said reason the present complaint is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Forum. Originally the complainant had taken a commercial vehicle package policy for his Mahindra Bolero Plus 2WD AC from this OP vide policy No. VC00113528000102, for the period of coverage from 09.09.2015 to 08.09.2016. Copy of the policy along with terms and conditions is annexed herewith as Document No. 1. It is submitted that the complainant had lodged a claim with respect to theft of the subject insured which had occurred on 17.02.2016, vide claim intimation on 23.02.2016. There was a delay of 6 years in lodging the claim with this OP. However, the complainant had only filed an incomplete claim from without a narration of the loss. Copy of the incomplete claim from is annexed herewith as Document. 2. The O.Ps duly assigned investigator to inquire into the claim and also obtain and collect the necessary documents to proceed with the claim further. However, on scrutiny of the claim, it was found necessary to obtain certain documents/clarifications from the complainant. Further the original ignition keys of the vehicle were not received. Hence a letter dt. 01.07.2016 was sent to the complainant seeking the necessary details. Copy of the letter dt. 01.07.2016 is annexed herewith as Document No. 3. The O.Ps have stated that a further reminder letter dt. 17.03.2017 was sent to the complainant seeking the above documents. Copy of the reminder letter dt. 17.03.2017 is annexed here with as Document No. 4.
It is also submitted by the O.Ps since the complainant did not respond to the above reminders, a final reminder was sent to the complainant vide letter dt. 24.03.2017. Copy of the final reminder is annexed here with as Annexure- 5. The claim was thereafter reopened on receipt of certain documents. It was found that only ignition key was submitted by the complainant. The acknowledgement from signed by the complainant handing over of one ignition key is annexed here with as Annexure. 6. It is also submitted by the O.Ps that, “here the complainant has not provided all the requisite information which is important to determine the claim admissibility and hence the O.Ps cannot be made responsible for any delay or non-settlement of the claim since the entire responsibility for the non-production of the above documents/clarification rests with the complainant.” The O.Ps have cited the following citation. “Failure of respondents (insured) to make available documents including driving license, RC Book etc would render investigation handicapped to make investigation of claim as to whether the vehicle in question at material time of accident was being driver by a person who held a valid driving license to ply vehicle on road. Respondents was not diligent for her cause as notwithstanding there being variation in names of driver, in information laid before the police and insurance company, had chosen not to make these details available to surveyor and as such, there was every good reason to draw adverse inference against respondents as should the driving license be not valid, the claim would merit rejection on this count alone.”
Hence the O.Ps has sought for the dismissal of this proceeding.
Documents filed by the O.Ps.
1. Copy of policy with terms and conditions.
2. Copy of incomplete claim form.
3. Copy of the letter dt. 01.07.2016.
4. Copy of the reminder letter dt. 17.03.2017.
5. Copy of the final reminder letter dt. 24.03.2017.
6. Copy of acknowledgement form signed by the complainant for one ignition key.
7. Copy of the letter dt. 22.03.2018.
OBSERVATION
We have already perused the complaint and written versions filed by the complainant and the O.Ps as well as the documents filed by them. As per the last and final reminder issued by the O.Ps to the complainant on dt. 06.11.2017, they have asked for 16 numbers of documents. The complainant had submitted 13 No’s of documents before The Manager (Claims) Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. The rest documents are not available with the complainant because those are original documents. Secondly the police recorded the statements of the driver Susanta Nayak, the complainant himself and the son of the complainant U/s 161 CrPc and other witnesses also. They have stated being examined by the police that the driver was sleeping in the night having all the documents of the vehicle. So it is presumed that those 4 No’s of documents might have been stolen by the thief’s. The original documents asked for by the last final reminder issued by the O.Ps. Those documents can be procured by the O.Ps. This is a fit case the complainant is entitled to the claim what he has sought for before the O.Ps. It is also the primary duty of the O.Ps to settle the claim of the complainant. Further it is held that there is authenticity behind the claim that- 1. The complainant has lodged the FIR, 2. FIR has been registered as well as GR Case No. 79/2016 has also been registered, 3. Charge sheet has been prepared, 4. The accursed person has been arrested. All the merits are available with the complainant as such he has a primafacie case.
We hold that the O.Ps have caused deficiency of service in respect of the complainant making delay for the settlement of the claim of the complainant. Hence it is ordered;
ORDER
The complaint be and the same is allowed against the O.Ps. The O.Ps are here by directed to settle the claim of the complainant. They are also directed to pay Rs 5,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and harassment. The O.Ps are further directed to pay Rs 3,000/- to the complainant towards cost of the litigation. The order is to be complied within 30 days on receipt of this order.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 16th September, 2019 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
