West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/152/2012

Sitala Prasad Bera - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

05 Apr 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.152/2012                                                        Date of disposal: 05/04/2013                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. K. S. Samajder.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. D. Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. G. P. Jana. Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. A. K. Pul & Mr. S. K. Maity. Advocate.

          

                 Sitala Prasad Bera, S/O-Ram Narayan Bera at Vill-Patpur, P.O.-Sapdiha & P.S.-

                 Garhbeta, Dist-Paschim Medinipur ……………………………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Medinipur Divisional Office at Station Road, Midnapore P.O. & P.S.-Midnapore Town, Dist-Paschim Medinipur
2. The Manager, Vidyasagar Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Garhbeta Branch, P.O. & P.S.-Garhbeta, District-Paschim Medinipur ……………………………Ops.

The complainant by filing this case has prayed for a direction upon the Op. no.1 to pay   Rs.48,070/-/-(forty eight thousand seventy) towards IDV amount of the motor cycle along with interest and litigation cost.

The gist of the complainant case is that the complainant had purchased a motor cycle taking financial help of the Op. no.2 and the said motor cycle was insured with the Op. no.1 under package policy on the basis of chassis and engine.  The coverage of insurance policy was from 16/09/2011 to 15/09/2012. During the process of registration of the motor cycle, it was stolen while it was standing in front of the complainant’s another house at village, Talbeta under Garhbeta P.S. on 17/09/2011 in between 2 p.m. to 2.20 p.m. Then the matter was informed to the local P.S. and accordingly Garhbeta P.S. case No.194/2011 dated 20/09/2011 under sec.-379 I.P.C. was started. The complainant informed the incident of theft to the Op-Insurance Co. and the complainant was supplied with a claim form there after the complainant filed his claim to the Op. no.1 alongwith all the required documents but the claim was repudiated by the Op. no.1 on the ground of non registration of the motor cycle.

The Op. no.1 and 2 contested the case by filing separate written objection. The Op. no.2 in his written objection did not deny the complainant’s contention that the motor cycle in question has insured with this Op. However, this Op. specifically contended that the motor cycle was not

Contd…………..P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

registered. It was also contented by the Op. no.1 that the insurance policy was purchased on 16/09/11 and on the following date i.e. on 17/09/2011 that motor cycle was stolen from a place different to that as mentioned in the insurance policy and as such the alleged incident of that is suspicious and the complainant did ply the motorcycle without registration. On these grounds the Op. no.1 prayed for dismissal of this case.

The Op. no.2 in its written objection contended that the complainant took consumer durable loan from this Op. and with the loan amount he purchased the motor cycle which was duly insured with the Op. no.1 and which was subsequently stolen. The specific case of the Op. was that he has been unnecessarily included in the case. So the Op. no.2 also prayed for dismissal of this case.

It is now for our consideration as to whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as claimed.   

Decisions with reasons

  In this case, on perusal of pleading of the parties and the documents on the records, it appears to be an admitted position that the complainant had purchased a ‘Hero Honda Splender’ Motor cycle after taking loan from the Op-Bank and the said motor cycle was insured with the Op-Insurance Company. The motor cycle is said to have been stolen on 17/09/2011. The insurance policy was purchased on 16/09/2011.  The Op-Insurance Company smelt a rat in it and contended that the alleged incident of theft is suspicious.

Over the incident of theft of motor cycle Garhbeta P.S. Case No.194/2012 dated 20/02/2011 under sec.-379 I.P.C. was started and after investigation police submitted final report which was duly accepted by the Ld. Court. The Op-Insurance Company could not show anything which may raise a doubt regarding the theft.

The only submission that the theft took place on the following date of purchase of insurance policy does not necessarily lead us to hold that the theft is suspicious which may be the ground of repudiation of the insurance claim.

Next, the Op-Insurance Company took the plea that the motor cycle inquestion was stolen from the place other than the place of residence of the complainant and it clearly shows that the complainant plied the motor cycle without registration no. We think this contention of the Op. no.1 is not much convincing. Because, if the complainant did ply with the motor cycle without any valid registration No. then it was for the concerned authority to take appropriate action against the complainant. For such alleged act only the Op-Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim and in fact from the policy also we do not find any much limitation.

Finally, it was contended and argued on behalf of the Op-Insurance Company that since the motor cycle did not have any registration no. the repudiation of insurance claim was rightly done.

Contd…………..P/3

 

- ( 3) -

Ld. Lawyer for the complainant contended that the registration has got no direct link or connection in the matter of insurance of the vehicle and since the motor cycle was insured without registration No., the act of repudiation of claim was not justified.

In this case, it appears that the motor cycle in question was insured on the basis of Engine and chassis No. only. The insurance policy does not find mention of the Registration no. of the motor cycle. The claimant is the rightful owner of the motor cycle which was duly insured with the Op-Insurance Company. We think that there was no nexus or connection between the theft of the vehicle which was duly insured and non registration thereof. The policy also does not find mention as to the limitation of use of motor cycle without registration. The registration of the motor cycle and the incident of theft were two different matters and there was no connectivity or linkage or any connection between the two. So the ground of repudiation of the insurance claim on the plea of non-registration of the vehicle, does not find any legal support. Our such view is fortified by the decisions of the Hon’ble national Commission in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. – Vs. – Pearls Buildwell Infrastructure Ltd. And others (2012(2)CPR-222(NC).

Now, it appears from the Insurance Policy that IDV of the vehicle was Rs.48,070/- (forty eight thousand seventy) only.

The motor cycle was stolen in the following date of Insurance Policy. So the question of deduction of any amount from the IDV does not arise. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get the full amount of IDV of the vehicle i.e.  Rs.48,070/- (forty eight thousand seventy) only apart from the litigation cost.     

                 Hence it is,

                                     Ordered,

                                               that the case succeeds on contest.

It is hereby ordered that the Op no.1 is liable to pay Rs.48,070/-(forty eight thousand seventy) only as the IDV of the motor cycle. The Op. no.1 is hereby directed to pay the entire amount of loan taken by the complainant from the Op. no.2, to the Op. no.2-Bank and if any amount remain after such payment to the Op. no.2, the remaining amount shall be paid to the complainant. The Op. no.1 is further directed to pay Rs.2,000/-(two thousand) only to the complainant towards litigation cost. Such payments are to be made by the Op. no.1 within 30 days form this date, in default the entire amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this case till realization of the entire amount.

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

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         President                     Member                        Member                                 President

                                                                                                                             District Forum

                                                                                                                        Paschim Medinipur.