DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 26th day of April, 2019
C.D Case No. 57 of 2018
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Prasant Kumar Nayak
S/o Bhaskar Chandar Nayak,
Vill- Matiapituli,
Po- Gelpur,
Ps- Bhadark (R),
Dist- Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. The Legal Manager, M/S TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Constanting Office Complex, 2nd Floor, II,
Dr. U.N. BRAHMACHARI STREET, Kolkata,
West Bengal, Pin- 700017
2. The Branch Manager, M/S TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Sridhar Tower, 2nd Floor,
At- Station Bazar,
Po/Dist- Balasore, Odisha
3. The Proprietor, Sanjaya Auto Mobiles
At- Dahanigadia, N.H- 16,
Po/Ps- Bhadrak (T),
Dist- Bhadrak
…………………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel For Complainant: Mr. J. B. Agasti, Advocate & Associates
Counsel For the O.Ps No. 1 & 2: Mr. Arun Chand, Advocate & Associates
Counsel For the O.Ps No. 3: Mr. Sasibhusan Panda Advocate & Associates
Date of hearing: 11.03.2019
Date of order: 26.04.2019
BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER
This dispute arises out of the complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
The facts of the complaint are to the effect that the complainant is a common man who was having a TVS Jupiter Scooter bearing Regd. No. OD-22K-4307. On 15.02.2018 at about 9. 00 PM when the complainant had been to market at Tahasil Road for marketing of ration etc., and he parked the said two wheeler by the side of the road and remained engage in purchasing the requirements. After completion of shopping, when the complainant went to the parking place of his two wheeler in order to go back home, he did not find his vehicle there and searched here and there but failed to get his vehicle. Being advised by the people surrounding him, he filed an FIR with Bhadrak Town P.S which was registered vide P.S Case No. 57/2018 U/s 397 IPC against unknown person. That the vehicle in discussion was insured with OP No. 1 & 2 as OP No. 3, the vender of the vehicle compelled him to take up policy with OP No. 1 & 2. Hence the vehicle was insured with the insurer (TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.) Vide Policy No. 0640010186976614-0000-00 which was operative commencing from 08.01.2018 to 07.01.2019. After the occurrence of theft the complainant sent a legal notice to the insurer (OP No. 1 & 2) for settlement of claim of Rs 52,174/- as the said policy was still in force. But the said O.Ps did not settled the claim nor communicated any result, rather preferred to keep quiet till date of filing of case. Finding no other way the complainant raised the dispute in this Forum for getting his legitimate claim from the insurer (O.Ps) praying the Forum for a direction to the OP No. 1 & 2 for payment of claim amount with cost and compensation.
O.Ps denied the allegations of the complainant and contested the case. OP No. 3, in submitting it’s written version stated that the answering OP has no role to play in a theft and burglary matter and hence it is not a relevant party to this case for which the case filed against him in a theft matter may please be dismissed. In submitting written version by the insurer O.Ps it is stated that the case is not maintainable in the present form as there is no deficiency of service not the complainant has come to the Forum in clean hands. The allegations brought in the complaint by the complainant are denied by the said O.Ps in totality on different grounds such as the complainant has not properly followed the instructions and terms and conditions as stipulated in the policy bond. According to the said terms and conditions the complainant had to intimate the insurer within 24 hours from the time of occurrence which is not done till the date of serving legal notice. Secondly the complainant has not lodged the FIR with the local police immediately after the incidence which has been filed after 7 days that leads to doubt that the complainant with an ulterior motive and ill intention has filed the so called FIR with the local police. That apart, because of non submission of immediate intimation to the insurer about the theft of the vehicle is an Act of suppression of facts and the complainant has not allowed the O.Ps to exercise their right to investigate and to find out the truth of the incidence. By such an action of the complainant, the O.Ps were kept in darkness about the incidence for a pretty long period and therefore the complainant has utterly failed to discharge his performance and obligation. As per terms of the policy vide condition No. 1 it is stipulated that “notice shall be given to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require………….in case of theft or criminal Act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operative with the company in securing the conviction of the offender”. Thus it is crystal clear that the complainant has dealt the matter in a languid and ineffectual manner and it also indicates that the complainant has tried to suppress the truth in a very artistic manner. It is further stated by the O.Ps that the cause of action would have arisen from the date of intimation given to the insurer but in the present case the complainant has not given any intimation immediately after the theft which is mandatory as per the terms of the policy. Therefore it is clear that the complaint does not have any merit and liable to be dismissed with cost.
We have gone through the complaint, written version of O.Ps, perused material on record, heard the parties to this case in course of hearing and observed as discussed hereunder.
OP No. 1 & 2 have objected the allegation of complainant to the effect that the vehicle was stolen on 15.02.2018 at about 9.00 PM when the complainant was busy in shopping and keeping the vehicle in question by the side of old Tahasil Road Bhadrak. It was the prime responsibility of the complainant to lodge FIR with the local police immediately after the incidence and should have intimated the insurer about the theft of the vehicle, either instantly or on the next day. But in the present case the complainant has filed the FIR after seven days from the date of theft and has not at all given any intimation to the O.Ps which leads to doubt, if the vehicle was stolen or the complainant has managed to dispose off the vehicle with bad intention and ulterior motive. On the contrary the complainant contented in stating that he has given due intimation to the insurer (O.Ps) and filed FIR with local police immediately after the incidence which did not yield any result for the complainant and he, being disappointed, filed the dispute in the present Forum to get justice and for settlement of the claim.
Perused the materials on record and observed that the complainant has not adduced any evidence to strengthen and prove his allegation about the intimation given to the insurer and submission of claim proposal to the O.Ps for settlement of the claim. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has not disclosed anything about the outcome on his FIR with the local police and what is the progress made so far about the police investigation. No such material is available on record which would have supported the complainant to prove his allegations. When the insurer has not received any intimation from the complainant nor received any claim proposal and has not yet repudiated the claim, we do not find any lapses with the O.Ps nor O.Ps have failed to provide service required by the complainant. Hence the allegations brought against the O.Ps are fake, frivolous and a well plotted story designed to deceive and extract money from O.Ps for no genuine reasons. Hence it is ordered;
ORDER
The complaint be and the same is dismissed and in the circumstances without cost.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this 26th day of April, 2019 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
