West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/171/2016

Sk. Najibul Ali - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

30 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

  PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President

and

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member

    

Complaint Case No.171/2016

    Sk. Najibul Ali, S/o-Sk. Abdul Rejak,

Vill.-Bharatpur,

P.O.-Dihiramnagar, P.S.-Daspur,

Dist-Paschim Medinipur…..….………Complainant

Versus

1. The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Kharagpur Branch Office at Atwal Estate Building, O.T. Road at Inda, Kharagpur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur ;
2. The Branch Manager, Indusind Bank Kharagpur Branch Office at  Inda, Kharagpur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur;
3. The Propeitor, Amit Motors, Inda, OT Road, Kharagpur,                     Dist-Paschim Medinipur ………….Ops.

 

 For the Complainant:  Mr. Tapas Adhya, Advocate.

 For the O.P.             :  Mr. Pinaki Sengupta, Advocate.                       

                                                 Decided on: - 30/05/2017                             

                                                ORDER

                             Pulak Kumar Singha, Member :  Complainant files this case u/s-12 of C.P. Act, 1986.

                            In brief the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased one two wheeler, namely Bajaj Pulser-220, vide engine no.DKZCFB16054 and chassis no.MD2A13EZXFCB29006 from  O.P. no.3 through financial assistance with O.P. No.2. The said two wheeler was insured with O.P. No.1 and said policy was valid from 25/09/2015 to 24/09/2016.  The vehicle in question was stolen from the house of complainant on 22/11/2015 at midnight. The matter of theft informed to the local P.S. but police did not start any case for which the complainant filed complain case before ACJM,

Cond……………….P/2

 

( 2 )

Ghatal for directing Daspur P.S. to treat the complain as F.I.R and start the case. Accordingly Daspur P.S. started case u/s 379 of Cr. P.C. vide Daspur P.S. case no.293/2015 dated 24/12/2015. The  complainant informed R.T.O. not to registered the vehicle. Complainant also informed the matter of theft to O.P. No.1 through dealer of said motor cycle. Complainant moved before O.P. No.1 for payment of claim but O.P. No.1 did not pay heed rather repudiated the claim. Finding no way complainant appeared before this Forum for getting Redressal as per prayer of complaint.

            O.P. No.1 contested the case by filing w/o denying the allegations of complainant, stating inter alia that this case is not maintainable,  complainant should intimated the matter of theft immediately to this O.P. but complainant informed this O.P. after 40 days. On the ground of delayed information O.P. has repudiated the claim.

        O.P. No.2 contested the case by filing w/o stating inter alia, that this O.P. gave financial assistance to the complainant for purchasing the vehicle, loan amount is still due from complainant. This O.P. has no part for settlement of claim and this O.P. prayed for deleting their name from this case.

        O.P. No.3 inspite of received summan neither appear nor contested this case. So, the case is heard ex-parte against O.P. No.3.

Points for decision :-

1. Whether the complainant is maintainable ?
2. Whether Op. no.1 is negligent and deficiency of service ?
3. Whether complainant is entitle to get relief as prayed for ?

Decission with Reasons

             All the points are taken together for the sake of convenience and brevity. We travelled over the case record and documents that it reveals that the complainants’ new two wheeler had theft on 22/11/2015 night from the house of complainant. Complainant stated in his complaint that he intimated the matter of theft to the local P.S. but P.S. refused to accept his complain. Then he filed a complaint case u/s 156 clause 3 of Cr. P.C. before S.C.J.M., Ghatal on 27/11/2015 for giving direction to Daspur P.S. for treating F.I.R. and the said complain  treated as F.I.R. on 24/12/2015. Complainant informed the matter of theft to O.P. No.3 subsequently O.P. No.2 but intimated the matter of theft to O.P. No.1 on 03/01/2016 by submitting claim form. Complainant adduced evidence on his behalf but did not mentioned the date of intimation to the O.P. no.1. From the letter dated 12/01/2016 and 28/01/2016 it appears that O.P. by sending those letters asking some clarification from complainant regarding date of registration and date of theft of the vehicle but complainant ignored those letters. Complainant did not mentioned in his complaint that on which date he had intimate to local police station in respect of theft of

Cond……………….P/3

 

 

                                                       ( 3 )

 vehicle. Moreover the complainant did not disclose the date of intimation to O.P. No.1 regarding theft. Complainant submitted  claim form before O.P. no.1 on 03/01/2016 i.e. after forty days from the date of theft. Complainant should intimated the matter of theft immediately to O.P. No.1 as well as P.S. but complainant has failed to prove that he had immediately intimated the matter of theft to O.P. no.1 and local P.S. Complainant on evasive way stated that he had intimate the matter of theft to the local P.S. and O.P. no.1 where no date has mentioned, for which it cannot be ascertain that complainant informed immediately to the O.P. no.1 as well as local P.S. Accordingly the terms and condition of policy  the insured/owner shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company in securing conviction of the offender.  If the intimation was not made immediately to the P.S., is violation of condition of policy and due to delay intimation always lost the chance of recovery of the stolen insured vehicle. In condition no.1 of the policy it has stated that Notice shall be given in writing to the Insurance Company immediately after the occurrence of any accident loss. As per Black’s Law Diction any, word immediately means. Immediately without interval of time, without delay, straightaway or without any delay or lapse of time. Delay information always lost  recovery of theft articles.  Similar fact of this instant case in Revision Petition no.4374 of 2010, National Insurance Co. Vs. Sharvan Singh, Hon’ble National Commission observed and referred the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil appeal no. 6739 of 2010, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chandu, wherein it was held that insurer cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the insured despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy.

               In view of the discussions that the complaint case is not maintainable in law and O.P. No.1 is not negligent and deficient of service. O.P. No.1 has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Complainant is not entitled to get relief as prayed for.

             The complaint case fails.        

                                        Hence, it is,

                                                           ORDERED,

              That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against Ops. without cost.

Dictated and Corrected by me

          Sd/- P.K. Singha                                                                               Sd/-B. Pramanik.

                Member                                                                                           President

                                                                                                                     District Forum

                                                                                                                 Paschim Medinipur