Order-14.
Date-26/04/2016.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
In brief, the complainant’s case is that the complainant is in the business of travelling passengers from place to place by his own vehicle and he is insured under OP1 for Commercial Vehicle Package Police bearing no.OG-14-2401-1812-00000556 valid from 27-12-2013 mid night to 26-12-2014 mid night over the vehicle bearing no.WB-04-F 4966.
That two unknown persons namely Santosh Sharma s/o. Satya Narayan Sharma and Ranbir Sing s/o. Rajender Prasad were checked in OP2’s hotel with the help of complainant’s said vehicle on 26-11-2014 at night after travelling from Digha and on 27-11-2014 at about 12.00 hrs those two persons checked out from that Hotel for Tarapith with the said vehicle and along with three other passengers (3rd passenger is Amit Tewari, employee of Mechino Techno, a dealer of Maruti car of Behala) reached at Tarapith (Hotel Sonar-Bangla) at about 18-00 o’clock. On 27-11-2014 at night when the complainant along with three persons started taking his dinner, complainant felt drowsiness and went to bed and next day morning found that his vehicle was stolen and after asking the guard of the Hotel came to know that at mid-night that two unknown persons took the vehicle and left the Hotel.
On 28-11-2014 complainant along with Amit Tewari went to Rampurhat Police Station to lodge a complaint but Officer-in-Charge refused to accept the complaint but ultimately on 01-12-2014 they took the complaint after a prolonged harassment and issued a copy of F.I.R. along with written complaint and started a case No.278/2014 dated 01-12-2014 u/s.406/328/424/379/34 IPC.
Complainant firstly informed Mr. Dipankar Paul, agent of OP1 within 48 hours but he advised him on 08-12-2014 to lodge the claim through help line of OP1 but OP1 repudiated the claim on the ground of delay to intimate the claim before the company. Complainant requested again and again but gained no result. Therefore, finding no other alternative sent a notice through his lawyer but OP is very much adamant in not settling the claim peacefully. So, the complainant filed this case before this Forum for gross deficiency in service of the OP towards complainant and prayed for claim amount and compensation and other relief as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
On the other hand, OP2 by filing written version emphatically denied that the two persons mentioned in paragraph no.3 of the complaint of the complainant have ever checked in at their hotel on 26-11-2014 at night after travelling from Digha with the help of the complainant’s vehicle bearing no.wb-04F 4966 and on 27-11-2014 at about 12 hrs checked out from the said Hotel for Tarapith with the said vehicle and as such there is no connection with the said persons with the OP2. OP2 filed a copy of Hotel Guest Check in and Check out Register book. Further OP2 denied that any premium was received by the OP2 of the instant claim from the complainant hand to hand and such allegation against OP2 is not correct.
OP2 further stated that as no relief or prayer claimed from the OP2 and no relief ever lies against the OP2, OP2 is not a necessary party, so, the complaint against OP2 is not maintainable.
Though OP1 on 19-01-2016 appeared through their Ld. Lawyer filed vakalatnama but did not file any written version. So, the case is heard accordingly.
Decision with Reasons
On an indepth study of the complaint and the written version and also considering the entire materials on record and the documents it is clear that complainant is the insured under the OP1 and admitted position is that the vehicle No.WB 04 F 4966 is the insured vehicle under the OP and complainant’s business is travel tour let out the vehicle to the passengers or tourists from place to place as per their desire and on 27-11-2014 two persons came from OP2’s hotel and booked the vehicle for their journey to Tarapith and on 27-11-2014 complainant took three passengers or tourists namely Amit Tiwari, employee of Mechino Techno, a dealer of Maruti car of Behala, Ranabir Singh, s/o. Rajender Prasad whose Aadhaar No.4775 5563 1168 and another one Santosh Sharma, s/o. Satya Narayan Sharma who Pan Card No. FAKPS4431J from OP2’s place and reached at Sonar Bangla Hotel at Tarapith at about 18.00 and complainant along with three went to take dinner and felt drowsiness and went to sleep and next day morning when complainant woke up, found that his vehicle was not there when complainant asked the guard of the hotel and he replied that two persons took the vehicle and left the hotel so on 28-11-2014 complainant along with Amit Tiwari went to Rampurhat Police Station but the Officer-in-Charge remarked that some time the financer towing the vehicle due to default of payment and the owner of the vehicle used to come to the police station and used to lodge a complaint for theft and order to wait for 24 hours, not only that the Officer-in-Charge of Rampurhat P.S. advised the complainant to lodge the complaint to that police station from where the vehicle has been booked and complainant came back to his residence and on the next date on 29-11-2014 he went to Parasree P.s. and requested the Officer-in-Charge to take the complaint regarding theft of the vehicle but he advised the complainant to lodge the complain at the police station under whose jurisdiction the theft took place and on the next date on 30-11-2014 complainant went to Rampurhat P.S. and against requested the Officer to take complaint but in reply he said that a murder took place at Ayesh Gram and due to that all the officers were busy ther and that situation there was not possible to take any complaint on that date so better to come on the next date and finding no other way complainant returned home keeping the compliant to the officer-in-charge of dated 28-11-2014 and on the next date complainant went to Rampurhat P.S . along and requested him to take the complain and on that date the Officer-in-Charge was kind enough and he took attention of the complainant complaint dated 28-11-2014 and advised to change some words and lines of that complaint written by the complainant dated 28-11-2014 and complainant did it accordingly and the aid officer in charge accepted that complaint and confirming the information over telephone regarding to collect the copy of FIR dated 01-12-2014 and on 04-12-2014 complainant received the copy of FIR along with written complaint and ultimately the case has been noted under Rampurhat P.s. Case No.278 of 2014 dated 01-12-2014 u/s.406/328/424/279/34 IPC.
Complainant submits that on 29-11-2014 complainant rang the authorized agent of OP and narrated him about the fact of theft of motor vehicle and on reply he asked the complainant regarding policy particulars of the vehicle but as the all original documents of the vehicle were in the vehicle complainant could not reply him and on the next date Dipankar Pal sent the complainant a scan copy of policy and advised him to submit the claim along with vehicular documents at once so, complainant after getting FIR Copy on 04-12-2014 went to Dipankar Paul for submitting the claim on 05-12-2014 but one member of the family of Dipankar Paul replied that he is busy of his own marriage so better to contact after 3 to 4 days. So, after 4 days he contacted with Dipankar Paul and he advised to lodge the claim through help line which system is very much unknown to a policy holder because it is the general system.
Subsequently, the complainant lodged the claim through helpline on 08-12-2014 and subsequently, Debajit Chakraborty issued a letter on behalf of the OP where the said person advised to submit some documents for investigation. Thereafter complainant hand over the documents as required on 22-12-2014 which was received by his office personnel with signature. Complainant also reported the matter to CIT in writing on 16-02-2015. Further he requested the Registering Transport authority in writing on 19-12-2014 which they received on 22-12-2014 in connection with the above stolen vehicle.
Subsequently, on 09-02-2015 OP sent a letter through Registered Post where they warned the complainant to reply within 7 days why the said claim should not be repudiated and on receipt of this repudiation letter was issued by the OP and complainant lost his all hopes to get all mighty and asked him the question of the result of honesty. Subsequently, on 20-03-2015 complainant received a registered letter from one Debabrata Dutta of OP informed the complainant that the matter is fully reserved, but ultimately the OP repudiated the claim filed by the complainant on 08-12-2014 for delay to intimate the claim before the company. But practically, complainant has been paying EMIs and it is under the control of the financier but fact remains the complainant’s vehicle is insured under the present insurance company and in view of the above fact complainant appeared before this Forum. Truth is that it is a commercial vehicle and package policy no.OG – 14 – 24 – 01 – 1812 – 00000556 and validity was for the period from 27-12-2013 to 26-12-2014.
Most interesting factor is that OP2 is made a party but he is not the service provider but from his hotel two persons came from and therafter, they went to Tarapith and after that complainant reached at Sonar Bangla Hotel and complainant along with travellers took meal but ultimately complainant felt drowsiness and slept and on morning hours he found that the said vehicle was not there and at the same time these two travellers are also absent. Whatever it may be, police case was started on Rampurhat Police Station and delay in report the matter to the Insurance company is found for the laches of the Rampurhat Police Station. Investigation was made by the Rampurhat Police Station and ultimately FRT start but could not be searched out and at the same time no accused can be apprehended and searched out but peculiar factor is that the claim was repudiated on the ground of delay but it is negligible and delay was caused not for his fault but for his agent and for fault of police station and peculiar factor is that in this case notice was served upon the OP Insurance company who repudiated the claim but insurance company did not appear before this Forum to contest the case and also did not deny the allegation of the complainant.
After overall evaluation of the materials on record and documents we find that there was no delay in filing the claim lodged by the complainant. Due to harassment of the police complainant lodged the claim at a small belated stage. Police investigated the case submitted FRT and it is the provision of law till FRT/final report is submitted no claim can be decided when from the policy report it is found that theft was committed. But these two fellows who stole the vehicle could not be searched out though complainant served different sources but police failed to search out them but considering that fact as per police report theft was committed and the vehicle could not be searched out or recovered and at the same time the vehicle is not traceable then it was the duty of the OP Insurance Company to consider the entire fact and depute such surveyor for determination of the claim and the repudiation on the ground so called delay is completely baseless but fact remains it is the common practice of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance to repudiate the claim in all cases and their only plea is delay but reason for delay was explained by the complainant but that was turned down and that is their business. They are eager to insure the vehicle but they are not ready to pay the compensation in case of loss as per contract and unilaterally without giving proper judicial mind repudiated the claim no doubt and for which we are convinced to hold that the repudiation as made by the OP insurance company is bad in law as delay was properly explained when theft was committed as per report of the police, so, it is the duty of the OP to re-open the claim and to dispose of the claim of the complainant by proper settlement of claim within 45 days from the date of this order.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is allowed ex parte against OP1 with a cost of Rs.5,000/- and dismissed on contest against OP2 without any cost.
OP1 is hereby directed to re-open the claim of the complainant in respect of the theft of the vehicle and to dispose of the claim of the complainant finally treating the vehicle is stolen and it is untraceable as per report of the police also and the repudiation as made by the OP1 is treated to be invalid illegal and for which this claim of the complainant shall be reopened by the OP1 on receipt of the copy of the judgment and within 45 days from the date of receipt of the judgment OP shall dispose of the claim and to confirm the complainant in all respect in this regard and if OP fails to comply the order in that case complainant shall have to report before this Forum whether order has been complied or not. If it is not complied in that case OP insurance company shall have to pay a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the complainant within 15 days from the date of expiry of the order to be complied by the OP1.
Even if it is found that OP1 is reluctant to comply the order in that case OP1 shall have to pay penal damages at the rate ofRs.5,000/- per month till compliance of the order made by this Forum and if it is collected it shall be deposited to this Forum but even then OPs are found reluctant to comply the order in that case penal action u/s.25 read with Section 27 of the C.P. Act shall be started against them for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed.
