In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 246 / 2009.
1) Mr. Jalaluddin Hardar,
Vill. Basudevpur, P.O. Hatni, P.S. Pandua, Hooghly. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) The General Manager, Reliance Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Himalaya House, 5th Floor, 38B, Jawahar Lal Nehru Road, Kol-71.
2) T M L Financial Services Ltd.,
Apeejay House, Block-‘B’, 5th Floor, Kolkata-700017.
3) The General Manager, R.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd.,
149, B1 Road, Kolkata-700058. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. A. B. Chakraborty, Member
Order No. 2 5 Dated 23/02/2012.
The petition of complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 has been filed by complainant Mr. Jalaluddin Halder against the o.ps. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased a Tata Specio Gold car bearing no.WB-16S-9486 on 31.3.07 by taking loan from o.p. no.2. The car was insured with o.p. no.1. On 28.2.08 at Pandua, Hooghly the car was stolen from the premises of petrol pump of Bharat Petroleum and the incident was reported to Pandua P.S. on 28.2.08. Insurance company neither settled nor repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the vehicle in question was not kept after due care. Hence the case lodged by complainant with a prayer contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
O.p. nos.1 and 2 entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case and matter was heard ex parte as against o.p. no.3 as o.p. no.3 did not contest this case.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and evidence and documents in particular. It is an admitted position apparent from the record that complainant had insurance as against the vehicle in question. The plea taken by o.p. no.1 i.e. insurance company is that the vehicle in question was not kept under proper care and it was kept in a petrol pump. We are of the view that no motor accident claim is sustainable if any accident occurs within the premises of the petrol pump area. If it is so, in that even the plea taken by o.p. no.1 is not sustainable and does not hold good. Besides o.p. no.1 received premium from the complainant and entered into an agreement. Now o.p. no.1 cannot through away the claim of the complainant on flimsy ground as has been raised by o.p. no.1 in w/v. It has also been alleged by o.p. no.1 that complainant failed to produce some documents asked by o.p. no.1 and in this regard ld. lawyer of the complainant referred to a decision published in 1999 NCJ (NC) and the said decision reveals that for conduct of non action of the complainant insurance company cannot evade its responsibility from paying insurance claim. That being the position and on perusal of the entire materials on record available we are of the view that o.p. no.1 had sufficient deficiency being a service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest against o.p. nos.1 and 2 and ex parte against o.p. no.3 with cost to o.p. nos.1. O.p. no.1 is directed to settle the claim of the complainant by paying an amount of Rs.4,63,459/- (Rupees four lakh sixty three thousand four hundred fifty nine) only together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of claim till the date of realization. O.p. no.1 is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.
_____Sd-_____ _____Sd-_______
MEMBER PRESIDENT