Order No. -09 Dt.-23/05/2014
The case is taken up for passing final order.
The case of the complainant Sri Krishna Pradhan u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 in brief is that he purchased a motor bike(Bajaj Pulsar 150D TSI) bearing registration no. WB- 74/S/9149 on 02/12/2010, Engine no.DHGBTG47012, Chasis no.-MD2DHDHZZTCG58544. The complainant for safety and security of Motor Bike insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. Being Policy No. 15060031116265006696 covering the period 22/12/2011 00:00 hrs to midnight 21/12/2012. And the aforesaid Motor Bike of the complainant was stolen away by some unknown miscreant from his house on 22/12/2011 at about 2:30am to 05:00am and it was duly informed to the Officer-in-Charge, Mal.P.S. on 22/12/2011 in writing which was registered vide Mal.P.S. Case no.575/11, dt.22/12/2011 u/s 380IPC. And after that on completion of investigation of the case police submitted final report on 16/03/2012.
It is also stated by the complainant that he informed the incident of theft of Motor Bike to the Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. in writing on 26/12/2011 with the request to settle the claim. Thereafter as per verbal direction of the Insurance Company the complainant submitted all relevant documents as as well as key of Motor bike to the Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. vide letter dt. 27/04/2012. On several occasions the complainant went to the office of the Insurance Company to ascertain the fate of his claim but inspite of receiving all documents relating to the stolen Motor bike the Insurance Company didn’t take any step to settle the case of the complainant.
Hence this case.
The O.P. has contested the case by filing Written Version denying the claims and contentions as made by the complainant. It has been stated inter-alia in the said W/V that after receiving the complaint the O.P. asked the complainant to file the relevant documents which are mandatory to decide the eligibility and to settle the claim but the complainant failed and neglected to provide those documents to the O.P. It is also contended that the complainant failed to produce any paper regarding the depreciation value of the Motor Bike. Due to non-compliance of required documents the claim could not be settled by the O.P. and as such there is no gross negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. So the relief claimed by the complainant are not tenable in law and on fact and this O.P. is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. And thus the case is dismissed with cost.
Points to be decided upon the above averments both parties went on necessary hearing with the following points.
1. Is the case maintainable as alleged?
- Is the complainant a consumer as per provision of Consumer Protection Act.1986?
- Is/Was there any gross negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. as alleged?
- Whether the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as sought for? If so to what extent?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All four points are taken up together for consideration and decision for the sake of convenience.
Seen and perused the petition of complaint, the W.V. and all other relevant documents and materials on record. We find that the O.P. has challenged the maintainability of the case in its W/V. We find from the record that the complainant is a bonafide policy holder of his alleged stolen Motor bike WB-74/S/9149 of the O.P. National Insurance Company Ltd. vide policy no. 15060031116265006696 covering the period from 22/12/2011 00:00 hrs to midnight 21/12/2012. Therefore we find that the case is maintainable in law. Admittedly the complainant is a policy holder for his alleged stolen Motor bike WB-74/S/9149with the O.P. National Insurance Company Ltd. for availing of service on payment of a consideration premium of Rs.1070/-(One Thousand Seventy) only. So we can safely do hold that the complainant is a consumer as per provision of Sec 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is alleged by the complainant that being the consumer of the O.P. the complainant informed the incident of theft of his Motor bike to the Senior Manager of the O.P. in writing on 26/12./2011 with a request to settle the claim for his stolen Motor bike and thereafter on verbal direction of the Insurance Company the complainant submitted all relevant documents relating to the Motor bike as well as vehicle keys with the Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. vide letter dt. 27/04/2012 but the O.P. didn’t settle the claim of the petitioner. In reply the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. argued that on being asked by the O.P. after receiving the complaint the complainant failed and neglected to submit relevant documents to settle the claim to the O.P. Due to this reason the claim couldn’t be settled by the O.P. as such there is no gross negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. and there is no cause for filing the case.
After due consideration of argument advanced by the Ld.Lawyers of both parties, the petition of complaint, written version and documents filed by the complainant as per list of documents on record, we find that after stolen away the Motor bike of the complainant on 22/12/2011 at about 2:30 am to 5:00pm from his house the complainant lodged a written complaint to the O.C. Mal.P.S. on 22/12/2011 at 13:45 hrs G.D.E No.980 dt. 22/12/2011 being Mal P.S. Case no. 575/11 dt. 22/12/2011 u/s 380 I.P.C and also informed to the Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. in writing on 26/12/2011 with the request to settle the claim of the complainant. And thereafter as per direction of the O.P. the complainant submitted all relevant documents alongwith key and the police papers i.e. Final report of the said Motor bike in question to the O.P. on 27/04/2012 on several occasions the complainant had been to the office of the O.P.to ascertain the fate of his claim but the O.P. didn’t settle the claim.
We find and hold that the conduct of the O.P. Insurance Company amounts to deficiency of service and also gross negligence on the part of the O.P. to the complainant. In view of our above discussions we think and opine that the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as specified below.
Thus the case succeeds.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the C.C No. 80/13 u/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 filed by the complainant, Krishna Pradhan be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the O.P. Insurance Company Ltd. with cost of Rs.1000/-(One Thousand) only.
The complainant do get an award of Rs.34,000/-(Thirty-four Thousand) only towards compensation for gross negligence and deficiency of service against the O.P. and in our considered opinion that would be just an adequate compensation for the complainant in the facts and circumstances of the case. The O.P. is directed to pay the entire above mentioned awarded amount within one month from the date of this order to the complainant, failing which the complainant is to recover the awarded amount alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. of the entire amount to be calculated on and from the date of the filing of this case till realization of the entire amount by executing this order into execution as per provision of law.
Let copy of this final order be supplied to the parties free of cost forthwith in terms of Sec.5(10) of West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules 1987.
