Date of Filing: 09-12-2015 Date of Final Order: 23-02-2017
Smt. Runa Ganguly, President In-Charge
The Complainant Mr. Mokabber Ali S/o. Late Maniruddin Mia, filed the present case u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying for issuing direction upon the O.Ps to pay the total insurance claim amount of the said vehicle with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- for mental pain, agony & unnecessary harassment.
Briefly stated the facts of the case can be gathered from the case record is that the Complainant is the owner of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. WB-64-H/2720 and he insured his vehicle with I.C.I.C.I. Lombard Motor Insurance Co. Ltd. i.e. the O.P through the O.P. No.3, Manager, Debnath Auto Centre, Cooch Behar.
Suddenly, on 15/05/2013 a theft was occurred at the house of the Complainant, by which the Complainant lost his motorcycle. After that the Complainant informed the said fact to the concern insurance company as well as to the Police Station. Subsequently, the said insurance company appointed a surveyor and the Complainant submitted his all necessary documents to the surveyor along with claim form of the said company but till today the said company did not pay any heed.
Due to such activities of the O.Ps, the Complainant suffered mental pain, agony & harassment and finding no other alternative he has filed the present case before this Forum seeking redress and reliefs as incorporated in the prayer portion of the Complaint.
The O.P. No.1, Manager, I.C.I.C.I. Lombard GIC Ltd., Kolkata and the O.P. No.2, Manager, I.C.I.C.I. Lombard Motor Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai have contested the case by filing W/V denying all material allegation of the complainant contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable and the Complainant has no cause of action to bring the case. The main contention of the O.P. No.1 & 2 is that the motorcycle of the Complainant is hypothecated by HDFC Bank Ltd. for which the mention financier is necessary party to add in the present case but the Complainant did not do the same.
The O.P. No.1 & 2 further contended that the incident occurrence on 15/05/2013 but the Complainant has filed this case on 08/12/2015 i.e. after 2 years, so as per Sec. 24 A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 this claim case is not maintainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be dismissed against this O.P insurance company.
It is the case of the O.P. No.1 & 2 that after a long time later on 04/09/2013 the Complainant gives intimation to the office of this answering O.P that his vehicle was stolen for that the Complainant demand the insurance claim against his theft vehicle. After received the claim information from the Complainant as per rule of Insurance Act and I.R.D.A. norms give appointed one surveyor for survey loss of vehicle. The O.P insurance company after received the surveyor report from the said surveyor, it is found that the Complainant did not supply the relevant documents i.e. GR certified copy of F. I. R., Seizure list and investigation officer of Kotwali police station final / Charge sheet report and also the Complainant did not supply the R. T. O. information letter which all are very essential for settle the claim. So there was no any deficiency in service from the part of the O.Ps.
As per rule of Insurance Act and I.R.D.A. norms the F. I. R., Tax invoice bill, Registration certificate, Driving license copy and seizure list, Charge Sheet / Investigation Police officer final report is very much require for settle the claim, so the O.P insurance company requested the Complainant by telephone for supply the documents & stolen vehicle articles i.e. Handel lock both Key (original & duplicate) because if the Complainant lock the key at the time of occurrence it is very much essential both the key.
On 29/01/2014 the O.P insurance company received a letter and both Handel lock key (original & duplicate) vide Key No.8103 from the Complainant and from this records it was found by the this O.Ps when the Complainant purchased the vehicle it is clearly mention in the TAX INVOCE dated 12/04/2013 that the said vehicle was purchased from Debnath Auto Centre, N. N. road, Cooch Behar and the said vehicle bearing CHH No. ME4JC36JDD7388197, ENG. NO. JC36E-7-7596181, Key No. 8603, Colour Black & FSC No. 613349 but the Complainant supply the Handel key No. 8103 (both original & Duplicate) which all are difference against the original key for that it is very much suspected point and as per the insurance policy & claim form this claim is not maintainable in the eye of law. So the O.P insurance company sent a letter to the Complainant on 16/05/2014 mentioning that in the circumstance you are therefore information that the above caption claim made by the Complainant hereby stands as NO CLAIM and the Insurance Company cannot violate the I. R. D. A. norms or Govt. of India policy. The surveyor report/ investigator report it is one part of evidence for that the insurance company fully dependent of the said report and estimate. So there was no any deficiency in service and negligence from the part of the O.P. No.1 & 2.
Ultimately, the O.P. No.1 & 2 prayed for dismissal of the case with sufficient cost.
The O.P. No.3, Manager, Debnath Auto Centre, Cooch Behar has contested the case by filing W/V denying all material allegation of the complaint contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable and the Complainant has no cause of action to bring the case. The main contention of the O.P. No.3 is that the complaint of the Complainant is not admitted by this O.P as the same is not within the knowledge of this the O.P. No.3. The Complainant without any reason or cause made a party as the O.P. No.3 only to harass, as such the Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as he claimed in his complaint from the O.P. No.3.
Ultimately, the O.P. No.3 prayed that to expunge the O.P. No.3 from the above case and/or dismiss the case against the O.P. No.3 with an exemplary cost.
In the light of the contention of the Complainant, the following moot points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully and perused the evidence on affidavit of the Complainant. Perused the entire documents in the record also heard the argument advanced by the parties at a length.
Point No.1.
The Complainant obtained an insurance policy of the O.P, I.C.I.C.I. Lombard GIC Ltd., in connection with his motor cycle bearing Registration No. WB-64-H/2720. The O.P. No.1 & 2 issued a policy bearing No.3005/2010689507/0000002425. The Complainant purchased the said motor cycle from the O.P. No.3 on hire purchased agreement with HDFC Bank Ltd., Siliguri.
Thus, the Complainant is a consumer of all the O.Ps.
Point No. 2.
Though the O.P. No.1 & 2 are not running their business within the jurisdiction of this Forum but the cause of action arose within this district. The O.P. No.3 is the permanent business centre in this district and the insurance of the alleged motor cycle of the Complainant duly insured with the O.P. No.1 & 2 through the O.P. No.3.
The claim amount is also within the prescribed limit.
Thus, there is no hesitation to say that this Forum has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint of the Complainant.
Point No. 3 & 4.
Undisputedly, the Complainant insured his motor cycle with the O.P. No.1 & 2. The valid period was 29/04/2013 to 28/04/2014. The case of the Complainant is that on 15/05/2013 the said motor cycle had been stolen from his house within the valid insurance period. The Complainant lodged an F.I.R at Kotwali P.S., Cooch Behar on the following day i.e. 16/05/2013 and gave intimation to the Insurance Company on the same day. The point of the dispute is that after compliance all the necessary formalities the claim has not been settled.
It is the case of the O.P. No.1 & 2 that the Complainant intimated the fact of theft of his insured vehicle within time. The O.Ps appointed a surveyor but the Complainant did not gave full particulars as per requirement of the surveyor. Hence, the said claim decided as NO CLAIM.
On perusal the record, it appears that the Complainant did not file any evidence on affidavit and original documents. Moreover, the conduct of the Complainant is very bad and not tenable in the eye of law.
The O.P. No.1 & 2 by filing W/V and evidence on affidavit stated that the Complainant did not co-operate with the surveyor who appointed by the O.P, Insurance Company also the Complainant handed over some articles of the stolen vehicle those are not match with the stolen vehicle as per Tax Invoice. After verification all documents, the surveyor settled the claim as NO CLAIM and informed the Complainant by a letter dated 16/05/2014 that the Complainant in F.I.R stated that he kept his motor cycle in a open varanda that seems he did not took minimum care and caution for safety of his newly purchased motor cycle though that was locked. Be that as it may, carelessness of the owner does not fall any policy conditions.
The Complainant did not filed any evidence on affidavit or denied the statement made by the O.Ps in their W/V.
Moreover, on perusal the daily order, it appears that the Complainant remain absent on so many dates. Thus, it is crystal clear that the Complainant has no interest to proceed with the case or he has nothing to say against the version, filed by the O.Ps.
We have also do not find any materials on record to substantiate the case of the Complainant.
In view of the above discussion and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are in considered opinion that the present case is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The present Case No. CC/108/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to costs.
Let plain copy of this Final Order be made available and be supplied free of cost to the concerned party/Ld. Advocate by hand/Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
