West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/55/2016

Sri Pulak Patra - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager MAGMA HDI General Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Dipankar Pati

23 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President

and

 Kapot Kumar Chattopadhyay, Member   

 

                                                     Complaint Case No. 55/2016                                                        

 

Sri Pulak Patra, S/o Basudeb Patra, Vill. – Baragarh,

P.O. & P.S.-Debra, District- Paschim Medinipur.…..….……Complainant.

Vs.

Manager, Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

24-Park Street, Kolkata-700016 ...………...........…..Opp. Party.

 

              For the Complainant: Mr. Dipankar Pati, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Somnath Guin, Advocate.

 

Decided on: -23/08/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows:-

                      Complainant is the registered owner of a vehicle being no.WB-33A/0727 and the Op. No.1 is the insurer of such vehicle vide policy no.P0015400002/4103/119729 covering the period  from 7/11/2014 to 6/11/2015. On  11/09/2015,  an occurrence of theft of the said  vehicle took place infornt of Debra Bazar petrol  pump and the matter was immediately intimated to all concerned. After getting such information, O.P. deputed one investigator and the said investigator collected all documents relating to the vehicle from the complainant.  At the time of theft, the original documents were lying in the vehicle for which the complainant could not provide such original documents to the investigator. It is stated that the complainant executed an agreement of sale of the said truck in favour of  one  Sibu Pal on 07/08/2014 as at the relevant time the complainant due to his illness was not in a

Contd……………..P/2

 

                                                                                                      ( 2 )

position to ply the vehicle and  therefore he handed over management of the said vehicle in favour of Sibu Pal  and as such he  executed the said agreement of sale. By that document no transfer of ownership of the vehicle was done. When the complainant recovered from his illness, another deed of agreement dated 03/07/2015 was done in between said Sibu Pal and the complainant and by virtue of that document, the management of that vehicle in question was handed over to the complainant. On or about 20/02/2016,  the O.P.-Insurance Company  by sending a letter repudiated the claim of insurance on the ground that there should exist insurable interest at the time of taking policy as well as the time of theft. It is stated that at the relevant time insurable interest was very much in favour of the complainant.  It is alleged that O.P. is playing tricks to avoid his liability and such act of the O.P.  in repudiating the claim of insurance amounts to  deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint,  praying for directing the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.4,77,000/- as insured declared value of the vehicle, an award of Rs.15,000/- for damages an award of cost of the proceeding.

               It is to be stated here that initially the present complaint was filed against O.P. No.1 & 2 and they both appeared in this case. Subsequently on prayer of the complainant, the name of O.P. No.2 was expunged vide order no.7 dated 10/08/2016.

              O.P. No.1 has contested the case by filing a written objection.

              Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the O.P. No.1 that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present case against the O.P., that  the petition of complaint is barred by limitation and territorial jurisdiction and that the present complaint is not maintainable. It is stated by the O.P. that the complainant lodged the  information of theft at  Debra P.S. on 22/09/2015 i.e. after laps of 12 days from the date of theft and the  O.P. was intimated about such occurrence of theft by the complainant on 12/09/2015 without giving satisfactory explanation for such delay.  Intimation of theft should be informed immediately after the occurrence and in case of  theft, the insured shall give immediate information to the police and shall co-operate with the company in securing conviction of the offender. It would be found from the FIR that the complainant did not take reasonable care and protection of the vehicle and he parked the vehicle in an open public place instead of garage. He  also did not intimate about such occurrence to the registering authority as per provision of M.V. Act. From the report of investigator, so engaged  by the O.P., it is disclosed that the complainant sold the vehicle by executing a sale deed in favour of one Sibu Pal and he also delivered possession of the vehicle to said Sibu Pal  after receiving sale price of

Contd……………..P/3

 

 

( 3 )

Rs.6,24,000/- in cash  before the alleged occurrence of theft and thus he has lost insurable interest of the vehicle. He took no permission on the insurance company regarding such transfer. It is therefore stated that the O.P. has no deficiency in service on their part and the petition of complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.     

                                                                 Points 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 prayed for ?

Decision with reasons

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

       At the very outset it is to be stated here that in this case neither the complainant nor the O.P. has adduced any sort of evidence either oral or documentary but they have relied upon some documents so filed by them.

     In their written objection in paragraph no.2, O.P.-Insurance Company has raised an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction to try this case. On this score, we find from the cause title of the petition of complaint as well as from other documents that the O.P.-Insurance Company is dealing his said insurance business at 14-Park Street, Kolkata-700016 which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. In view of that, it is held  that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try this case and as such the petition of complaint is liable to be rejected.

      All the points are accordingly disposed off against the complainant.

                                                  Hence, it is,

                                                                    Ordered,

                                   that the complaint case no.55/2016  is  dismissed on contest for want of jurisdiction but in the circumstances without cost.

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

            Dictated and Corrected by me

                     Sd/-B. Pramanik.              Sd/- K.K.Chattopadhyay.                 Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                           President                                Member                                        President

                                                                                                                          District Forum

                                                                                                                       Paschim Medinipur