West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/163/2015

Sri Sukhen Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

14 Jul 2016

ORDER

 

 

 

 

                                                                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

&

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

                                   

   

Complaint Case No.163/2015

                                                       

                 Sri Sukhen Das, S/o Prakash Chandra Das, Vill. Prembazar Hijli Co-operative Society,  

                 P.O. Kharagpur, P.S. Kharagpur (T), Dist-Paschim Medinipur, Pin- 721306.   

                                                          …………….….Complainant                                                                                                                    

Versus

 

               A ) The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., at plot no.11/F/11, Block-B,

                      3^rd Floor, Ecospace, New Town Rajarhat, Kolkata-700156.

                B) United Bank of India, Kharagpur IIT Area Branch, Prembazar Hijli Co-operative

                      Society, Kharagpur, Pin-721306.

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

 

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Asim Kumar Dutta, Advocate.

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

 

Decided on: - 14/07/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant purchased a new Swift Dzire Tour DSL car being registration no.WB-34AB-4563 and took policy from the opposite party-Insurance Company for any kind of accidental damage i.e own damage and third party claim.  Complainant paid the premium of Rs.10,188/- covering insurance of the said car and after receiving the premium amount, the opposite party issued a policy being no.OG-14-2410-1801-00001567 for the period from 01/10/2013 to 30/09/2014.  On 08/05/2014, the said vehicle of the complainant being

Contd…………..P/2

 

 

 

( 2 )

 

driven by his driver Prasanta Shit had been proceeding for Howrah station to  pick up the family members of the complainant and on the way two unknown persons stopped the car at about 11 P.M. and disclosed themselves as employee of Election Commission and requested the driver to give lift to them up to Chowrangee and when they reached near Inda, they asked the driver to stop the car, took cold drinks and offered the driver to take such drinks and after taking small quantity of cold drinks, the driver became senseless.   When the driver regained his sense he found himself lying on road side near Basantapur and found his car was missing.  The complainant thereafter lodged a G.D entry at Kharagpur (Town) P.S. on basis of his imagination about incident as because his driver had not been traced out and when the driver Prasanta Shit  returned to the house of the complainant and narrated the matter.  As the  G.D. entry was found contradictory with the F.I.R. so the driver was interrogated by the Investigation Officer and he also make statement before the Magistrate U/S 164 Cr. P.c.  Police could not trace out the accused and therefore the Investigation Officer submitted report in final form in connection with the said Kharagpur (T) P.S. case no.252/2014.  The said information of theft of the car was duly informed in the office of Bhandari Automobile as the policy was taken there from and they also provided the policy certificate.  Thereafter an information was given to the office of the opposite party on 07/07/2014 over phone as the complainant was under treatment for a considerable period.  In spite of providing all documents for settlement of claim for theft of the vehicle, the opposite party repudiated the claim vide their letter dated 15/12/2014 on the ground of delay in giving information to the opposite party and on the plea of using the vehicle for commercial purpose violating policy terms and condition of the policy.  It is stated that the opposite party-Insurance Company on technical ground has deprived the complainant in getting benefit of insurance policy intentionally and willfully. Hence the complaint,  praying for directing  the opposite party to pay Rs.4,89,180/-  towards the value of the car,  an award of compensation of Rs.50,000/- and an award of cost of Rs.5000/-.   

                  The opposite party- Insurance Company has contested this case by filling a written objection.

                   Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party no.1 that at the relevant time in the Insured’s declared value of the said vehicle was 4,89,180/- and as the car was more than one year old at the relevant time i.e. on the alleged date of lost/theft  so as per terms and conditions of the policy there will be deduction of 20% as depreciation over the IDV.  Although the alleged occurrence of theft

Contd…………..P/3

 

 

 

( 3 )

 

was informed to Kharagpur (T) P.S on 09/05/2014 but the Insurance Company was  intimated regarding the said occurrence after lapse of 58 days without sufficient explanation for delay by violating the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is also the case of the opposite party no.1 that from the FIR, it is found that the insured vehicle was being used as hired vehicle by hiring some unknown persons in the private car of the insurer at the time of alleged theft.   Although the car in question was private car but it was being used as commercial purpose.  The opposite party has no liability to pay any compensation whatsoever and therefore they repudiated the claim of Insurance.  It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and therefore the petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

              Opposite party no.2 appeared in this case and by filing a petition they prayed for dismissal of the case on the ground that no relief has been claimed against them.  Subsequently opposite party no.2 did not appear to contest this case.

 

Point for decision

1)Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?

2)Has this Forum territorial jurisdiction to try this case?

3) Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?    

                   

Decision with reasons

For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

            To prove his case, the complainant has examined himself as PW-1 by tendering a written examination- in –chief, supported by affidavit and during his evidence, one certified copy of final report of Kharagpur (T) P.S. Case no.252/14 dated 09/05/2014 and a certificate issued by Bhandari Automobiles have been marked as exhibit 1 & 2 respectively and some other documents have been marked as X - series for identification.  On the other hand, opposite party no.1 has adduced no evidence. 

           At the very outset, we find from the petition of complaint that the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party no.1 to pay Rs.4,89,180/-, litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- and an award of compensation of Rs.50,000/-.  From the cause title of the petition of complaint, we find that the opposite party no.1 runs it’s business at New Town,  Rajarhat, Kolkata-700156, which is outside the jurisdiction of this Forum.  In paragraph 4 of the written objection, opposite party no.1 has stated that the petition of complaint is barred by

Contd…………..P/4

 

 

 

( 4 )

 

territorial jurisdiction.  Although in the petition of complaint,  the complainant has stated that the opposite party no.1  runs it’s business through it’s Kharagpur branch office and the policy in question was collected from the said branch office but the said branch office,  if any,  of the opposite party no.1  has not been made party in this case  in spite of objection regarding territorial jurisdiction as raised by the opposite party in paragraph 4 of it’s written objection.  In view of that and since opposite party no.1, against whom relief has been claimed by the complainant,  deals his business beyond the jurisdiction of this Forum at New Town,  Rajarhat, Kolkata, so this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try this present case.  The petition of complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed. 

                                                  Hence, it is,

                                                     Ordered,

                                                                               that the complaint case no.163/2015  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost. However, the complainant is at liberty to file a fresh complaint by impleading   the branch office, if any, of the opposite party no.1 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. on the same cause of action.

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

 

          Dictated and Corrected by me

                      Sd/-B. Pramanik.                     Sd/- D. Sengupta.                   Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                           President                                    Member                                President

                                                                                                                      District Forum

                                                                                                                   Paschim Medinipur