West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/181/2017

Sri Shailendra Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Kshitish Palmal

17 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

        Bibekananda Pramanik, President,   

and

  Sagarika Sarkar, Member. 

 

Complaint Case No.181/2017

 

Sri Shailendra Singh S/o-Late Shibdev Singh, Vill.Dwarigeria, P.O.Satbankura, P.S. Garhbeta, District - Paschim Medinipur,Pin-721253.   

                                                                                                                    ………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

1. The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Kharagpur Branch,O.T.Road, Atwal Building,Near Kharagpur College,Inda,P.O.Inda, District- Paschim Medinipur,Pin-721305.
2. The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.,Mani Square,6^th Floor No.164, Maniktala Main Road, Mani Square Premises NJo.41, Canal Circle Road, Kolkata-700054.
3. The Manager,Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., G.E.Plaza,Airport  Road,Yerwada, Pune-411006.

                                                                                                 .....……….….Opp. Parties.

                                           

              For the Complainant: Mr.Kshitish Palmal, Advocate.

             For the O.P.            : Mr.Anup Kumar Misra, Advocate.

                                                         

                                                                            Date of filling : 20/11/2017                                                                                                                     

                                                                              Decided on   : 17/07/2018

                                

ORDER

                          Sagarika Sarkar, Member –This consumer complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act has been filed by the complainant Sri Shailendra Singh against the above named O.Ps, alleging deficiency in service on their part.

              

                                                                                                                                                         Contd……..P/2.

 

                                                                                                (2)

 

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

Complainant obtained an insurance policy having No.OG-2410-1803-0000782 covering the period from 27.8.2014 to 26.8.2015 in respect of his vehicle bearing

Registration No.WB/33B-5620. It is stated in the petition of complaint that the said insured vehicle was loaded with soyabean oil of M/S Adani Wilmer Ltd. and was driven by one driver namely Goutam Mal from Haldia towards Chapra,Bihar and the said vehicle reached Chandrakona on 27.11.2014. It is further stated in the petition of complaint that the complainant regularly made contact with the driver of the insured vehicle over telephone and came to know that the said vehicle stayed at Chandrakona for two days but suddenly on 30.11.2014 the complainant could not able to contact with the driver of the said vehicle and, thereafter, he could not trace out his insured vehicle. It is stated by the complainant that he intimated the said incident to the O.C.of Garhbeta P.S. and intended to lodge F.I.R. but Garhbeta P.S. refused to record  F.I.R.of the complainant. It is further stated by the complainant that with the help of M/S Adani Wilmar Pvt.Ltd. he lodged a G.D.E. at Garhbeta P.S. vide G.D.E.No.419 dated-10.12.2014 and he informed the said incident to the Tata Motors Finance Ltd.on 26.12.2014 and also informed the said incident to Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. on 19.1.2015 with all relevant papers and subsequently he informed the matter of theft of his vehicle to the M.V.Department by a letter dated-2.1.2015. It is further stated by the complainant that one Akshay Kumar, Manager of C.T.A.Logistics Ltd.,lodged a complaint in respect of the stolen vehicle of the complainant at Garhbeta P.S. on 9.5.2015 vide P.S.Case No.51/2015. Thereafter the complainant submitted his claim of insurance before the O.P.-Insurance Co. at their Kharagpur Branch on 19.1.2015 but the O.P.-Insurance Co. repudiated the claim of the complainant. Accordingly the complainant has prayed for direction upon the O.P. to pay Rs.16,00,000/- with the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

   O.P. has contested this case by filing written version. Denying and disputing all the material allegations lebel against them, it is the case of the O.P. that the complainant informed them about the occurrence of theft of his vehicle after a lapse of 26 days from the incident took place which clearly shows that the complainant has violated the policy condition no.1.It is further stated by the O.P.that they requested the complainant to deposit the supporting documents to establish his claim by letters dated-2.1.2015 and 6.2.2015 but the complainant neither deposited the relevant documents to establish his claim nor did he turn up with the O.P. O.P. has also stated that they did not get opportunity to investigate into the matter of theft of the insured vehicle by appointing an investigator & also lost the opportunity to trace out the vehicle in question as they were informed the incident of theft       

                                                                                                                                                             Contd………P/3.

 

                                                                                    (3)

 

 after  expiry of 26 days from the date of occurrence. It is further stated by the O.P.that the

 occurrence of theft of the said vehicle took place on 30.11.2014 and F.I.R. was lodged on 9.2.2015 after a lapse of 71 days. O.P. has further stated that at the pertinent time of theft both the ignition keys were inside the vehicle in question which clearly indicates the carelessness and negligent attitude of the driver of the vehicle in question appointed by the complainant and thus the complainant violated the conditions no.5 of the insurance policy so the O.P. has rightly repudiated the claim of insurance of the complainant. Accordingly O.P. has prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.

   To prove his case complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and during his evidence few documents were marked as exhibit-1 to 14 respectively. On the other hand O.P. adduced no evidence.

                                                               Points for decision

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the O.Ps.  ?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs, as prayed for ?

                                                       Decision with reasons

           Point no.1:-

                            Complainant obtained an insurance policy in respect of his vehicle from the O.P.-Insurance Co. by paying premium  and the vehicle was under cover of  insurance policy at the time of theft took place. It is alleged by the O.P. that the complainant used his vehicle for commercial purpose for which he is not a consumer within the meaning, scope, ambit and purview of the Consumer Protection Act. To determine this point we rely upon the decision of Hon’ble NCDRC, decided on March 9, 2012 reported in (2013) 1 WBLR (CPNC)324, where Hon’ble NCDRC pleased to hold  A contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity and, therefore, there is no question of commercial purpose in obtaining insurance coverage.

        In view of the above decision of  Hon’ble NCDRC, we are of opinion that the complainant is consumer under the O.P.

       Point no.1 is decided accordingly in favour of the complainant.

            Point no.2:-

       Admittedly the complainant obtained an insurance policy in respect of his vehicle. It is stated by the complainant that the said vehicle was stolen on 30.11.2014. G.D.E dt.-10.12.2014 lodged with the Garbeta P.S.supports such averment of complainant. The complainant has alleged that the insurer repudiated the claim filed by him in respect of the stolen vehicle without any valid ground. The O.P.,however, has stated that they asked the

                                                                                                                                                                  Contd……P/4.

 

                                                                                                      (4)

complainant to submit relevant documents by letters dated-2.1.2015 & 6.2.2015 but the complainant did not file any reply to the said letters and therefore the claim was repudiated as per provision of condition No.1 & 5 of the policy. On perusal of the said letters dated-2.1.2015 & 6.2.2015 issued by  the O.P. to the complainant we find that no where in the said letters the insurance co. ever asked the complainant to file any particular document which they call as relevant document. Further, on perusal of the conditions of policy it appears that as per provision of the said clause of the policy that the insured is required to report to the O.P.-Insurance Co. Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or 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. However the word Immediately does not specify any span of time. In the instant case it appears from the record that the complainant lodged G.D.with Garbeta  P.S.on10.12.2014 regarding theft of his vehicle. It is evident from the documents of record that the complainant reported the said incident within 26 days from the occurrence of the same to the O.P. In our view a spell of 26 days is a considerable proper time to report the incident to the insurer. Hence as per  principle of equity the complainant is entitled to get his claim. Therefore repudiating the legitimate claim of the complainant by the O.P.-Insurance Co. amounts to deficiency in service.

               Point no.2 is decided accordingly in favour of the complainant.

           Point no.3:-

In view of our above findings we are of opinion that the complainant  should  get the reliefs, as prayed for.

We think it will be just and proper if the complainant get insured value of his vehicle of Rs.16,00,000/- along with interest. Since the O.P.-Insurance Co.repudiated the claim of the complainant and compelled him to file this case so they are liable to pay litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.

 Point no.3 is decided accordingly .

 In the result, the complaint case succeeds. 

                                     Hence, it is,

                                                        Ordered,

                                  that the complaint case no.181/2017 is allowed on contest against O.P.-Insurance Co.with cost.

 

                                                                                                                                                        Contd…….P/5.

 

                                                                                               (5)

 

O.P.-Insurance Co. is directed to pay the insured amount of Rs.16,00,000/- along with interest @ 8% P.A. from the date of filing this case till realization to the complainant within a month from this date of order. O.P.is further directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant within a month from this date of order failing which entire amount shall carry interest @ 10% P.A.

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

                Dictated and Corrected by me

 

 

                               Member                                                                                            President

                                                                                                                                      District Forum

                                                                                                                                   Paschim Medinipur