FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT   

SMT. SUKLA SENGUPTA, PRESIDENT

This is a case U/s 35 of CP Act, 2019 filed by the complainant Mr. Prasun Banerjee against the OP Tata AIG General insurance Company Ltd.

The fact of the case in brief is that he complainant insured his vehicle being No. WB18X6668.

It is further stated by the complainant that he purchased the policy of insurance from the OP against the vehicle No. WB18X6668 (motor cycle) being policy No. 3190833446 for the period 19.10.2019 to 18.10.2024 of a sum insured (IBB) of Rs. 93,860/-. The copy of policy is annexed as annexure-“A”.

It is alleged by the complainant that the vehicle in question was theft in the morning on 27.11.2019.  He tried to search it out at his level best but in vain. Then he informed the matter at local PS Thanakul Dist.-Hooghly  but police advised  him for further  searching. He lodged the petition of complaint on 01.12.2019 vide FIR No. 345/2019. The copy of FIR is annexed as annexure “B”.

The concerned PS investigated the matter and submitted the final report before the Ld. Advocate vide final report No. 76/2020 dated 28.03.2020 (annexure-“C”). Thereafter, on 06.12.2019, the complainant informed the matter to the insurance OP Company along with documents and submitted the claim (annexure-“D”)

The complainant visited the OP Insurance Company and clarified the matter to the OP but till date the matter, the OP did not settle the claim.

It is further stated by the complainant that the OP Insurance Company  sent the letter dated  21.03.2021 to him for clarification.

Without having any other alternative, the complainant served  legal notice to the OP and filed this case with a prayer to pay a sum of Rs. 93,860/- to the complainant  as per sum insured along with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the date of intimation till realization.

 The complainant further prayed for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for harassment,  mental pain  and agony along with litigation cost.

The OP has contested the claim application by filing a WV denying all the material allegations leveled against them.

The OP stated that the instant petition of complaint does not come within  parameters of the CP Act,  2019.

The OP further stated that there was no deficiency or unfair trade practice on its behalf.  The OP further stated that the petition of complaint is not maintainable as per CP Act and the complainant is not entitled to get relief as sought for.

Admittedly,  the complainant has purchased  the Insurance policy being No. 3190833446 for a period for 19.10.2019  to  18.10.2020 for the vehicle  in question  being No. WB 18/X-6668 (motor cycle) and allegedly said vehicle had been stolen on  27.11.2019.

It is alleged by the OP that the incident of theft had been reported to local police on 01.12.2019 after laps of 4 days of the incident and intimated to the insurance company on 06.12.2019  at 7.02 hr which is a serious breach of conditions No. 1 of the insurance policy. The OP insurance company alleged that the complainant deliberately leveling the false allegations  against  the OP and he is not entitled  to get any insurance  claim and did not come to this commission  with clean hand. The petition   of complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

In view of the above stated facts and circumstances, the points of consideration are as follows:-

1. Is the case maintainable within the ambit of law?

2. Is complainant a consumer within the ambit of CP Act, 1986?

3. Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?

4. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

5. Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

All the points of considerations are taken up together for convenience of discussion and to avoid unnecessary repetition.

On a close scrutiny of materials on record and also the concerned provisions of law, it appears that the case is well maintainable in the eye of law and this  commission has got ample jurisdiction both territorial  and  pecuniary  to try  this case.

From the facts  and circumstances  of this case as well as evidence on record as adduced by the parties to this case,  it is evident that admittedly, the complainant purchased the  insurance  policy in question from the OP Insurance company being No. 3190833446 for a period of 19.10.2019 to  midnight 18.10.2024 on payment of required payment of Rs. 7,308/-  for the vehicle No. WB 18/X/6668 (motor cycle) on payment of required premium. Accordingly, the OP Insurance Company issued the insurance certificate in favour of the complainant. From which it is crystal clear  that the complainant is a consumer and the OP insurance company is a service  provider.

It is the case of the complainant that in the morning of 27.11.2019 the motor cycle in question being NO. WB/18/x/6668 was stolen from Atghar market by some unknown person. The complainant tried to search out the lost vehicle at his level best but in vain. Ultimately, on  01.12.2019 he lodged  the FIR at Khanakul PS being Khanakul PS FIR No.  345/2019  dated 01.12.2019 U/s 379 IPC as reflected from the FIR. Ultimately,  police finally submitted final report being No. 76/2020 , dated  28.03.2020 U/s 379  IPC in that case. It is also revealed from the facts and circumstances of this case and also from evidence on record that thereafter the complainant informed the OP Insurance Company on 06.12.2019 after getting a copy of concerned FIR and placed the claim for the lost vehicle on 08.03.2021 which is covered under the policy in question but the OP Insurance Company vide its letter dated 08.03.2021 asked for clarification from the complainant. The complainant tried to clarify the matter to the OP Insurance Company at his level best along with documents. In spite of the same, the OP Insurance Company vide its letter dated 18.03.2021 repudiated the claim of the complainant which compelled  the complainant to  come before this  commission  for getting relief.

The OP Insurance Company  in its WV as well as in written argument and also during the course of oral argument tried to establish that it was the duty of the complainant to inform the matter of  theft  immediately  after the occurrence to the local PS as  well as to the  Insurance company  but the complainant neither inform the local PS nor inform  the OP Insurance company immediately,  after the alleged  theft  which is a clear violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance policy  in this respect, Ld. Advocate for the complainant has cited a case law wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court opined in Trilok Singh Vs. Manager, Cholamandalam,  M/s General Insurance Company Ltd. and Others that when the appellant/complainant informed the matter to the PS in respect  of alleged theft and FIR was registered then the claim of the complainant cannot repudiated by the Insurance Company  on the ground of belated information  to the Insurance Company  relating the violation of the conditions  of the policy in question. Relying upon the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above mentioned case.

   This commission is also of same view that the complainant informed the matter of theft of the motor cycle in question to the local PS within 3 or 4 days after searching the same at his own accord.  Which is quiet natural conduct for an ordinary prudent and there after he lodged the FIR at khanakul PS.  Police registered the FIR as Khanakul PS Case No.  345/2019 dated  01.12.2019  U/s 379 IPC. The complainant after getting the copy of the FIR intimated the incident to Insurance Company on  06.12.2019. Such minor delay cannot be caused of repudiation of the claim of the complainant which is a genuine claim.

Hence,  in view of the discussion made above,  this commission is opined that the OP Insurance Company  being the service provider  cannot repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of belated intimation in respect of the occurrence of theft by the complainant  of the motor cycle in question and being a consumer the complainant is entitled to get the claim from the OP Insurance Company.

The OP  Insurance Company even on repeated  request  made by the complainant   did not pay any heed to settle the claim which is amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Insurance Company.   For that reason the OP Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation  to the complainant. 

In a nutshell of the discussion made above,  it is held by this commission that being  a consumer  the complainant  could be able to prove his case against  the OP Insurance Company beyond  all reasonable doubts and is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

Hence,

All the points of consideration  are considered  and decided in favour of the complainant.

The case is properly stamped.’

Ordered

That the case be and  the same is  decreed on contest against  the OP  TATA AIG General  Insurance Company with cost of Rs. 50,000/-.

The complainant  do get the decree as prayed for.

The  OP Insurance Company is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 93, 860/- to the complainant as per sum insured with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing  of this case till  realisation within 45 days from this date of order.  

The OP Insurance Company is further directed to pay compensation   to the complainant of a sum Rs. 10,000/-  along with litigation cost  of Rs. 5,000/-  within  45 days from this date of order,  id the complainant will be at liberty to execute the decree as per law. 

The copy of the judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for perusal.