Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/62

Shri Ramabrata Sen. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Mr.S.Choudhury

06 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC- 62   of  2014

            Sri Ramabrata Sen,
            S/O- Late Hiren Sen,
            Madha Para, Agartla,
            West Tripura.                      ..........Complainant.

     ______VERSUS_____

         The Divisional Manager,
         National Insurance Company Limited,
         Agartala Division, Agartala.             .......Opposite Party.
    

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHRI B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant           : Sri Surajit Choudhury,
                       Advocate.

        For the Opposite Party        : Sri Partha Srathi Chakraborty,
                              Advocate.

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  06.04.15.

J U D G M E N T

        This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Sri Ramabrata Sen of Madha Para, Agartala against the O.P., namely the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Agartala Division over  consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.P.

2.        The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that the complainant was the owner of the motor bike bearing registration no-TR01-N-8928under Model no. Glamour-K Cast (DRS) of Hero Honda make. The date of manufacture of the motor cycle was 2011. The motor cycle was under the coverage of insurance with the O.P. insurance company for the period from 24.09.12 to 23.09.13. On 22.08.13 any time at night the said motor cycle had been stolen from the house of the complainant situated at Madha Para, Agartala. On the following day of the commission of theft, he lodged an FIR bearing No- 249/2013 with West Agartala Police Station. On completion of investigation, the investigating agency filed charge sheet u/s 457/380 IPC. On 21.02.14 he intimated the O.P. Insurance Company as to the commission  of theft of his motor cycle and made a claim for making payment of the insured declared value of the stolen motor cycle. While making the claim, he submitted all the relevant documents to the O.P. Insurance Company. Despite repeated requests the O.P. Insurance Company did not settle the claim. According to the complainant, non-settlement of the claim for a longer period without any justifiable cause amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint. 

3.        The O.P. Insurance Company contested the case by filing written objection stating, interalia, that on an FIR lodged by the complainant regarding theft of his motor cycle a case was registered and the police investigated the case and on completion of investigation filed charge sheet. The Trial Court has not yet passed final order disposing the case, for which the claim of the complainant could not be settled. It is denied that they are negligent and deficient in service in any manner whatsoever.

4.        In support of the case, the complainant has examined himself as P.W.1 and has proved and exhibited the following documents:-
    Exhibit 1: Letter dated 21.02.14 of the complainant addressed to the O.P. Insurance Company; and 
    Exhibit 2: Photocopy of Policy of Insurance.
        
5.        No evidence either oral or documentary has been adduced on behalf of the O.P. Insurance company.

        Findings:
6.        The points that would arise for consideration are:
    (i) Whether the O.P. Insurance Co. was guilty of negligence and deficient in rendering service for not settling the claim of the complainant for a long time without any justifiable cause;
    (ii) If so, whether the complainant is liable to be compensated by the O.P.

7.        We have already heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Also perused the pleadings, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the complainant meticulously. 

8.        There is no manner of dispute as to the theft of the motor cycle bearing registration no- TR 01 N 8928 of Hero Honda Glamour model owned by the complainant from his house by breaking open the lock of the gate of his house at any time on the night of 22.08.13. It is also not in dispute that at the time of commission of theft the motor cycle in question was under the coverage of insurance with the O.P. Insurance company with IDV of Rs.40,760/-. It is the allegation of the complainant that though he preferred the claim with all relevant documents to the O.P. Insurance Company in time, yet his claim has not been settled without any justifiable cause.

9.        On perusal of the written objection filed by the O.P. Insurance Company, it is found that the main ground for non settlement of the claim of the complainant is that the trial court has not yet passed final order disposing of the pending criminal case instituted by the complainant.

10.        We have gone through the documents filed by the complainant, particularly the charge sheet. It appears that on an FIR lodged by the complainant with the West Agartala P.S. On 23.05.15 a case was registered bearing West Agartala P.S. Case No- 498/457  IPC. In the said FIR, besides the commission of theft of motor cycle of the complainant, there is a mention about  theft of other articles like laptop, mobile, cash amount etc from the premises of the same building occupied by the different tenants. During the course of investigation, the police recovered some of the stolen articles. On completion of investigation, the investigating agency framed charge sheet u/s 457/380/411 IPC against some accused persons.

11.        In the charge sheet, it is clearly stated that the police could not recover the stolen motor cycle of the complainant bearing registration no-TR 01 N 8928, as it was sold to Bangladesh for Rs.21,000/-. If so, we do not think that there is any possibility of recovery of the stolen motor cycle. In this situation, it is not at all understandable to us how the pendency of the criminal case in a court of law can stand in the way of final settlement of the claim made by the complainant when the investigating agency brushed aside the chance of recovery of the stolen motor cycle. The reason shown by the O.P. insurance company for non settlement of the claim does not seem to us to be reasonable and justifiable. It is well settled that non-settlement of claim of a consumer for a longer period without sufficient cause constitutes negligence and deficiency in service. That being so, the complainant is certainly liable to be compensated by the O.P. 

12.        The policy of insurance suggests that the year of manufacture of the stolen motor cycle was 2011 and it was stolen on the night of 22.08.13. We have already pointed out that at the time of commission of theft the subject motor cycle was under the coverage of insurance with O.P. Insurance Company with IDV of Rs.40,760/-. As per terms of policy of insurance, the complainant is entitled to IDV after deduction of applicable depreciation of 30% as at the time commission of theft the age of the stolen motor cycle was more than 2 years but less than 3 years.

13.        In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is allowed on contest. The O.P. Insurance company is directed to pay Rs.28,532/- (IDV of Rs.40,760/- minus Rs.12,228/- being 30% of applicable depreciation) to the complainant with 9% interest P.A. from the date of presentation of the complainant before this Forum on 23.08.14 till the payment is made in full. The O.P. is further directed to pay Rs.3000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and harassment with Rs.2000/- as the costs of litigation.  

14.                  A N N O U N C E D

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 
SRI B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SRI B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.