FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT
In a narrow campus complaint case is that O.P.s1-3 are the manager, authorized signatory and agent of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited.
O.P.4 was the previous owner, occupier and possessor of one vehicle Tata/LPT/407/34/E-II bearing Registration no. WB41D9455.
O.P.4 made an agreement for sale of the said vehicle with the Complt. in February, 2014 and it was notarized in 11.03.2014 and soon after execution of agreement for sale, O.P.4 sold the said vehicle to the Complt. and O.P.4 exempted himself from all liabilities in respect of said vehicles and handed over the said vehicle to the Complt.
The Complt. got one authorization from O.P.4 to run the said vehicle.
The insurance policy of the said vehicle is with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and the last insurance policy was issued on 20.12.2016 which was valid till 16.12.2017.
It is alleged that said vehicle was lost in 4.1.2017 at about 10pm from the matador stand situated at the middle of Alampur and Gurdwara under P.S. Sankrail, Howrah. Then Complt., informed O.P.4 who took all appropriate steps for insurance claim, lodged G.D.E. and F.I.R and did all other legal formalities. Then O.P.4 very sick and unable to move. Accordingly O.P.4 executed one General Power of Attorney in favour of Complt. and further to lodge G.D.E and F.I.R. and to take proper steps.
Thereafter Complt. implemented the loss to the said insurance company on 09.01.2017 and then lodged on G.D.E No. 954 dated 10.01.2017 at Sankrail P.S. and as per advice of insurance Complt. went to Sankrail P.S. on 15.01.2017 and aggain lodged G.D.E NO. 28 OF 2017 dated 15.01.2017 U/S 379 IPC.
Thereafter, Complt. states that one executive came and collected all documents of said vehicle but did not accept said General Power of Attorney and Complt. was provided the relevant claim no. further, three notices were served to O.P.4 from O.P.2 dated 18.1.2017, 17.2.2017 and 28.02.2017 regarding inability to pay insurance claim showing different reasons.
The further case of Ccomplt. is that those notices were given to him by O.P.4 (Insured) to Complt. in may 2017 due to illness Complt. coud not send any reply TO O.P.2.
Thereafter Complt. and O.P.4, requested O.P.1-3 to pay claim amount but they did not pay any heed to that.
Complt. states that has no objection if the insurance company pay O.P.4 instead of him. Then Complt. has prayed for:
- Direction to O.P.s1-3 to pay the claim amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- only to the Complt.
- Direction to the O.P.s to pay huge interest charge which your petitioner is entitled as per law.
- Direction to the O.P.s to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
- Direction to the O.P.s to pay Rs. 50,000/- as litigation cost.
- Other reliefs as deemed fit by the Commission.
O.P.4 has contested the case by filing w.v. contending inter-alia that there is no allegation against O.P.4 made by Complt. and O.P.4 was ready to cooperate with the Complt. in all aspects and in any manner regarding demand and claim of Complt. against O.P.1-3.
It ,may be nooted that O.P.4 made statement that Complt. purchased the said vehicle from him after entering into agreement for sale and soon after the purchase of said vehicle Complt. started to pay all the overdue and outstanding amount including E.M.I. and all other expenses of the vehicle.
O.P.4 also disclosed that the said vehicle was insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and it was valid till midnight of 16.12.2017.
It may be stated that O.P.4 has made almost similar facts as narrated by the Complt. in his complaint.
O.P.4 also states that O.P.1-3 have made serious injustice against the Complt. and he should get the claimed amount as prayed for.
O.P.4 has further states that he has no objection if the insurance made by the Complt. is paid to him instead of Complt.
Points for decision
- Whether the Complt. is the consumer of O.P.s 1-3?
- Whether this Commission (formerly Forum) has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of O.P.s 1-3 or there is any negligence or deficiency of services on the part of the O.P.s 1-3?
- Is the Complt. entitled to get relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
Complt. has filed evidence on affidavit.
Complt. has filed B.N.A.
O.P.4 did not file evidence of affidavit or B.N.A.
Though O.P.s 1-3 filed w.v. but vide order of 3.1.2018 , this Commission (formerly forum), did not allow the same on the ground mentioned therein.
Thereafter, O.P.s1-3 prayed for revision before Hon’ble State Commission being R.P/168/2018 and vide order of 29.05.2019 Hon’ble State Commission has been pleased to dismiss the said revision petition on the ground stated therein. Thereafter, vide order dated 17.07.2019 this Commission (formerly forum) allowed the prayer of O.P.s1-3 to file Questionnaire and O.P.s 1-3 have filed Questionnaire. Against that, Complt. filed reply. It is pertinent to mention that though O.P.s1-3 filed evidence on affidavit, but that cannot be considered at all as ex-parte proceeding is going on against O.P.s 1-3.
Decision with reasons
- On close scrutiny of the materials on record, it reveals that no doubt Complt. is a consumer of O.P.s1-3, under section 2(i)(d)(i)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- Complt. appears to be a resident within district Howrah, whereas the office addresses of O.P.s1-3 within Newtown, Rajarhat, Kolkata-700160. The residence of O.P.4 is in district Howrah. Considering the nature of the case and the prayers of Complt. it straightway gives clear signal that the pecuniary value of the case is within Rs. 20,00,000/- that is within the limits of this Commission(formerly Forum). So, this Commission (formerly Forum) has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case.
- This Commission has meticulously gone through the materials on record. The crux of the disputes of the instant case is that originally O.P.4 was the vehicle owner and subsequently he sold the same to Complt. who is using, possessing and running the vehicle on road. However, from concerned matador stand, the said vehicle was lost/missing.
- Resultantly, though O.P.4, being insured of the said vehicle, Complt. made necessary prayer before the insurer on the strength of General Power Of Attorney, executed by O.P.4. Finally, O.P.1-3 being the office bearers of insurer defied/denied the claim of Complt.
- From the copy of documents, Complt. was not able to show that his name has been registered as insured in respect of the vehicle before the insurer.
- Further, it is to be note that, Complt. made his allegations with the photocopies of documents in respect of the said vehicle including photocopy of F.I.R. and different photocopies of letters of the insurer. We are noticing that O.P.4 wholeheartedly tried his best to support the case of Complt., but said supporting is not enough to prove this case.
- Obviously, it is the bound and duty of the Complt. to prove that he has a bona fide case, which is to be justified by relevant documents but we are noticing, after perusal of materials on record, that on the strength of said General Power Of Attorney, Complt. is running the vehicle o road and we are not seeing that entire paper and documents relating to said vehicle has been properly shifted in the name of Complt. from O.P.4. Naturally, we find no irregularity and illegality on the part of O.P.1-3 in refusing the claim OF Complt. before insurer.
- Therefore we are constrained do hold that case of Complt. appears to be very weak and feeble and as such instant case is liable to be dismissed.
Hence,
It is,
ORDERED
That the instant case no. CC/158/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest against O.P.4 and ex-parte against O.P.1, O.P.2 and O.P.3 with cost.
Let free copies of this order be given to the Complt. and O.P.4 free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Sankar Kumar Ghosh
President, D.C.D.R.C.
Howrah.
Babita Chaudhuri Sankar Kumar Ghosh
Member President
D.C.D.R.C., Howrah D.C.D.R.C., Howrah
