West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/114/2016

Nandan Kumar Singha - Complainant(s)

Versus

The ICICI Lambard General Insurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

30 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.      

       Complainant Case No.114/2016

Nandan Kumar Singha S/o-Dulal Singha, Vill-Kusumda, P.O.-Baita Bazar,

P.S.-Mohanpur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur……………Complainant.

-Vs.-

The ICICI Lambard General Insurance Co. Ltd., MS Tower (2^nd floor),

OT Road, Inda, Kharagpur,

Dist-Paschim Medinipur and another…………………Ops.  

 

  Order No.9.                                                                                            Dated : 30/11/2016.

            The case record is put up before us for passing ex parte order.

            This is a complaint case under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, filed by the complainant Nandan Kumar Singha against the opposite parties-ICICI  Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

           Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows:-

           The complainant is the owner of a Kamco Power Tiller being model no.KMB-200/ER90, Base model no.9 H.P.  After purchasing the said power tiller, the complainant insured his said vehicle with the opposite party-Insurance Company under a Insurance Policy.  In the said policy there was a condition that if any accident occurred in respect of the vehicle in future, then the opposite party will be liable to pay compensation for any such damage.  On 03/07/2015, the engine and some valuable parts of the said power tiller had been stolen away and immediately thereafter the complainant lodged a complaint before the local police station and on basis of such complaint,  Mohanpur police station case no.72/2015  dated 04/07/2015, under section-379 of  I.P.C. was started.  Thereafter the complainant also made representations to the opposite party on 16/09/2015, 14/10/2015 and 24/05/2016 regarding all such facts  with a request to pay compensation in terms of conditions of the Insurance Policy.  After receiving the complaint, the opposite party without going through the merit of the claim and without considering the documents,  rejected the claim of the complainant with an ulterior motive and without applying  mind and without assigning any cogent reasons vide their rejection order dated 22/08/2015 and 14/09/2015.  Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned rejection order dated 22/08/2015 and 14/09/2015, the complainant sent demand notices through his Ld. Advocate to the opposite parties on 07/01/2016 and 17/06/2016 with a request to reconsider his claim but in spite of receiving the demand notices, the opposite party did nothing.  It is stated that due to such deficiency in service, the complainant had suffered mental pain and agony.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the opposite party to pay Rs.76,888/- towards claim of the insurance policy, a sum of Rs.5000/- towards inadequate service, a sum of Rs.5000/- towards mental pain and agony and a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation cost.

            Notice of this case was duly sent to both the opposite parties by registered post but in spite of service of notice, neither the opposite party no.1 nor the opposite party no.2 appeared.  Hence, the ex-parte hearing.

Contd…………………..P/2

 

                                                                                                           ( 2 )

                    To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his written examination-in-chief supported by affidavit in evidence and he was also examined on oath as PW-1.  During his evidence, few documents were marked as Exhibit 1 to 10 respectively.

                    In his evidence, the complainant has fully corroborated his case of the petition of complaint.  It appears from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence of the PW-1  Nandan Kumar Singha, the complainant no.1,  that he has specifically stated that after the occurrence of theft, he duly lodged complaint before the police station and he also submitted claim under the Insurance Policy, so issued by the opposite parties in respect of the said vehicle.  According to the complainant,  in spite of receiving the claim of insurance,  so submitted by the complainant, the opposite parties without applying mind rejected the claim of insurance  vide their letters dated 22/08/2015 and 14/09/2015.  Those two letters have been marked as Exhibit-7 and 7/1 respectively in this case.  From those two letters, we find that there is no whisper of rejection of claim of insurance but from the letter dated 22/08/2015 (Exhibit-7) we find that the  opposite parties requested the complainant to make the  subject vehicle available to them  within next 7 days to enable them to process the claim as per policy terms and conditions. From letter dated 14/09/2015 we find that the vehicle in question was not made available to the Ops. for their surveyor’s  inspection in spite of their best efforts to ensure the same. The complainant does not say anything as to whether he produced the said vehicle before the opposite party for inspection as directed by those two letters.  On the contrary,  the complainant has falsely claimed that by sending those letters, the opposite party has rejected his claim of insurance.  It thus appears that the complainant  has not come with clean hands. Since it appears from those two letters (Exhbit-7 & 7/1) that the claim of insurance is under process, so the present case is pre-matured one and the complainant  has therefore  no cause of action to file this case.  The petition of complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.   

                                            Hence, it is,

                                                                ORDERED,

                                                                                   that the complain case no.114/2016 is dismissed    ex-parte.

             The complainant is however at liberty to approach before the opposite party for settlement of his claim by producing the subject vehicle at the garage of the opposite party.                                                                       

             Let a plain copy of this order be given to the complainant free of cost.

 

Dictated and Corrected by me

         Sd/-B. Pramanik.                    Sd/- K.K.Chattopadhyay.                           Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

              President                                     Member                                                   President

                                                                                                                               District Forum

                                                                                                                            Paschim Medinipur