West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/14/2019

Mahammad Kahirul Basar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, ICICI Lombard JIC ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Achinta Chattapadhaya

18 Aug 2023

ORDER

Shri Sudip Majumder. President in Charge.

            The complainant/petitioner files this case U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The fact of the case in brief is that the petitioner/complainant, Mahammad Kahirul Basar, alias Mahammad Khairul Basar, permanent resident of Vill. Krishnagar, P.O. Mohurapur, P.S. Mayureswar and Dist. Birbhum, purchased an insurance policy for his Motor Cycle being Reg. No. WB-54-L-9102 from OP No. 1 being policy No. 3005/35815455/10835/000, which was valid from 13/03/2017 to midnight of 12/03/2018.

            On 25/03/2017 at 10 pm the petitioner kept his above motor cycle in the courtyard of his house. The motor cycle  was found  missing from the courtyard of his house in the morning of 26/03/2017. The petitioner  informed the Mayureshwar  P.S. of the incident on same date i.e. on 26/03/2017  in writing and the petitioner also annexed the receipt copy of the same and the same fact was  recorded as FIR on 02/04/2017.  Accordingly Mayureshwar  P.S. registered the Case No. 73/2017 dated 02/04/2017 and started GR Case No. 295/2017 and after that IO of that case submitted Final Report (FRT) Vide No. 113/2018 dated 15/07/2018 U/S 461/279 with remarks that “There is no clue obtained from any corner and no chance of further development in the case.”

            The complainant / petitioner stated in his complaint that the complainant informed the OP sides of the fact through telephone as well as in writing and as per advice of the OP sides the complainant filed an insurance claim with all documents vide claim No. MOT-06483010. Accordingly, the OP appointed their investigator  ‘Sakti Enterprise’ of Kolkata-700013 and the investigator issued a letter to the petitioner

 

dated 19/05/2017 and stated that….. “There has been a delay of 8 days in giving notice/intimation to the Police Station and 9 days delay in giving notice/intimation to the insurer whereas the aforementioned condition speaks of immediate notice to the Police & Insurer.

            In absence of any response from your side, we would be constrained to close the claim for Non-compliance of condition I of the policy wordings.”

            Thereafter, the complainant issued notice to the OP No. 1 dated 12/10/2018 and 30/10/2018 but the OP No. 1 has not responded for the same.

            Hence, after finding no other alternative the complainant is compelled to file this case before this Forum/Commission for proper reliefs prays for:-

1. To pass an order directing the OPs to pay Rs. 25,846/ to the petitioner with interest.
2. To pass an order for compensation of Rs. 50,000/ for mental pain and agony.
3. To pass an order directing the OPs to pay Rs. 20,000/ to the petitioner for litigation cost.
4. Other relief/reliefs as Ld. Court may dim fit and proper.

The OPs filed their written version, evidence and stated in their written notice on argument that …. “The petition of the complainant is not maintainable in law as the complainant violated the Policy condition and informed 8 days after the alleged incident.

      That above petition of complainant is bad for defect of parties as the vehicle in question was hypothecated to LICI and LICI should make party in the above case.”

            Ultimately the OPs prayed for dismissal of the case.

            Complainant’s side submitted evidence in chief and written notes on argument. Some documents have also been filed by the complainant compared with the original ones. Thereafter, Ld. Advocates for both the parties made oral argument in support of their case.

            Heard Ld. Advocate for the complainant.

            Considered.

            Perused all the documents.

Points for determination/Issues

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer as per definition of the term ‘Consumer’ of the C.P Act. ?
2. Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

Point No. 1:

            In this case, the complainant purchased an insurance policy for his vehicle vide policy No. 3005/35815455/10835/000 dated 13/03/2017 to midnight of 12/03/2018. Thus the complainant is a

 

consumer under the OP members and the OP members are the service providers. Hence, the complainant is a consumer as per Sec. 2(1)d(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Point No. 2:

            Pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission as per Sec. 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is Rs. 20,00,000/. OP/Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Suri Branch is situated in Birbhum District i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission as per Sec. 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So, this Forum/Commission has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.

In this case, the cause of action arose from 04/07/2017 and the case has been filed on 17/01/2019 and as such it can be said that the complainant has filed this case within the statutory period of the C.P. Act, 1986 and as such the instant complaint is not barred by limitation U/S 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986.

Point No. 3:

It appears from the documentary evidence in the case record that the complainant purchased an insurance policy from for his motor cycle being policy No. 3005/35815455/10835/000 dated 13/03/2017 and such policy was valid from 13/03/2017 to midnight of 12/03/2018.  On 26/03/2017 the vehicle in question was missing from his house and the complainant informed the same to the Mayureshwar P.S. in writing on same date. But, it was registered as FIR on 02/04/2017. As per advice of OP member the complainant filed an insurance claim vide claim No. MOT-06483010 along with all relevant documents. But the OP No. 1 and their investigator ‘Sakti Enterprise’ repudiated the claim as “There has been a delay of 8 days in giving notice/intimation to the police station.”

From the documentary evidence we find that the complainant informed to the local P.S. on the date of incident i.e. on 26/03/2017.

Hence, this Commission is of the view that there was no delay on the part of the complainant in the matter of intimation to the local P.S. for the same.

OP members stated in their written notes on argument that the vehicle in question was hypothecated to LICI and  LICI should be made a party to this case. But from the documentary evidence we find that the complainant had already paid all dues against his loan account to the LICI and LICI issued NOC thereon. Complainant also submitted the copy of NOC issued from LICI for the same.

Hence, this Commission is of the view that there is no necessity to include LICI as a party to this case.

It is proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the aforesaid act of the OP members are amounting to deficiency in service as per Sec. 2(1) (g) of C.P. Act, 1986 as well as unfair trade practice as per Sec. 2(1) (r) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

Hence, from the above discussion it is proved that the complainant could be able to prove  his case beyond all reasonable doubts.

 

 

Point No. 4:

From the documentary evidence as available in the case record it is crystal clear that the complainant is the beneficiary of the said policy.

As in this case, it is proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP members.

Hence, the complainant is entitled to get relief or compensation as prayed for.

Thus, all the points are decided in favour of the complainant.

Complaint is sufficiently stamped and proved beyond all reasonable doubts.

• In Chengalrayan Cooperative Sugar Mills Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2000) 10 SCC 213 it was held that “Interest ought to have been awarded from the date on which the claim was filed before the Forum.”
• In Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. Vs. G. Harishchandra Reddy & Anr. (2007) 2 SCC 720 it was held that “Only 9% interest be awarded on refund matter.”

            In the instant case as per view of the Hon’ble Apex Court in several cases the interest will be given @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this case.

Hence, it is,

            O R D E R E D,

                                        that the instant C.F. Case No. 14/2019 be and same is allowed on contest with cost.

The OP No. 1/  ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to pay Rs. 25,846/- (Twenty five thousand eight hundred forty six only) as insurance claim to the complainant/petitioner along with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. calculating on and from 17/01/2019 (i.e. from the date of filing of this case) till realization.

          The OP No. 1 is also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/ (Five thousand only) compensation and Rs. 3000/ (Three thousand only) as cost of litigation to the complainant/petitioner.

The entire decree will be complied by the  OP No. 1 within 45 (Forty five) days from this date of order, in default the complainant is at liberty to put this order to execution in accordance with law.

The instant case is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.