Tripura

West Tripura

CC/78/2015

Sri Babul Saha. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., & 1 another. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.S.Choudhury, Mrs.R.Shill, Mr.T.D.Sarkar.

09 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC-   78   of   2015

Sri Babul Saha,
S/o- Sri Parimal Saha,
Jirania, Block Chowmuhani,
Birendranagar, P.S.- Jirania,
West Tripura.                …...Complainant.

VERSUS

1. The Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
CBO-II, Guwahati Bora's Building,
Maniram Dewan Road,
G.S. Road, Ulubari,
Guwahati- 781 007.

2. The Divisional Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
44/2 Central Road, Agartala,
P.S. East Agartala, 
West Tripura.              .........Opposite parties.
   

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant        : Sri Tarun De Sarkar,
                      Sri Sampad Choudhury,
                      Smt. Rinku Shil,
                      Advocate.

For the O.P. No.1 & 2        : Sri Basudev Chakraborty,
                      Advocate.

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  09.05.2016

J U D G M E N T

        This case arises on the petition filed by one Babul Saha U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The petitioner's case in short is that he had purchased one Bajaj Pulsar Bike on 28.07.2009. At the time of purchasing he insured the motor cycle with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (in short OICL). on 28.10.2009 after 3 months of purchasing the vehicle was stolen away by unknown miscreants. Matter was informed to the OICL on same date. Information also given to O/C, Jirania Police Station. But the motor cycle could not be recovered. Finally police submitted the final report on 12/2010. Complainant awaited for long time for settlement of the claim. Then advocate's notice was given on 04.08.15. When the claim was repudiated the petitioner filed complaint before this Forum for redress. Petitioner claim Rs.1,55,000/- in total.
    
2.        Opposite party, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. appeared, filed W/S denying the claim. Insurance company stated that the claim is barred by limitation as the petitioner did not take any step for settlement of the claim. Matter was kept opened for long period. On 21.01.13 petitioner was asked to submit some documents and it was informed that  in case of failure within 2 weeks the claim would be repudiated. But the petitioner did not cooperate. So, his claim was considered as ''No claim'' and finally it was repudiated. 

3.        On the basis of contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination.

        (I) Whether repudiation of the claim by Insurance company was justified?
        (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the insured amount and other benefits for deficiency of service of the O.P.?

4.        Claimant petitioner side produced copy of intimation, letter, copy of final report, letters, Insurance Policy Certificate, Smart Card registration. 
        Petitioner also examined one witness, Babul Saha.

5.        Opposite party on the other hand produced the Two Wheeler Package Policy, Information letter also examined one witness. 

6.        Both side produced written argument.

7.        On the basis of all the evidence and the arguments placed before us we shall now determine the points.

            Findings and decision:

8.        Under Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act the complaint is to be filed within 2 years of the date of cause of action. In this instant case bike was stolen away in the year 2009 but the case filed in the year 2015. Learned counsel for the respondent therefore, argued that the case is hopelessly barred by limitation. We have gone through the correspondence between the insured and the insurer. The Insurance company Branch Manager wrote letter to Babul Saha on 10.12.12 directing him to produce some documents. On 21.01.13 again a letter written by the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance company to Babul Saha asking him to  produce the letter of subrogation letter of undertaking letter of indemnity, NCMB report within 2 weeks. If it is not produced the claim will be repudiated. It is submitted that those documents were not submitted. So, the claim was repudiated. On 13.08.15 by a letter Branch Manager informed that as they did not get any reply they had to close the claim. The claim was closed in March, 2013. But information in this regard was given on 13.08.15. In the next month on 28.09.15 Babul Saha filed the case. From this correspondence it is clear that cause of action arose in the year 2015 when Babul Saha definitely came to learn that his claim for compensation was closed by Oriental Insurance company. Therefore, this claim petition is not barred by limitation as cause of action remained open from 2009.  
    
9.        It is admitted and established fact that petitioner purchased the Insurance Policy from Oriental Insurance company covering period from 28.07.09 to 27.07.10. The motor cycle was insured and that insured cycle was stolen away on 28.10.09. On the same date on 28th October 2009 information was given to Senior Divisional Manager, OICL that information letter was given by Babul Saha marked as exhibit-A. He also filed FIR before O/C, Jirania P.S. giving description of the motor cycle. Police investigated the case but the bike could not be recovered. Finally final report was given by the police. About the theft of the motor cycle there is no suspicion at all.  The motor bike was insured and Rs.2009/- was given as premium. Value of the bike was Rs.83,591/- . It was covered by the policy certificate. Just after 3 months of the purchase of the policy the vehicle was stolen away. All these facts are not denied by the Insurance company. The contention of the Insurance company  is that for a long time the petitioner failed to produce the documents as wanted by the Insurance company. We have gone through the letter given by the Insurance company on 10.12.12 and 21.01.13. Insurance company did not take any step for settlement of the claim from 2009 to 2013 about 3 years. In the year 2013, O.P. repudiated the claim as not tenable as letter of subrogation, letter of undertaking, letter of indemnity, NCMB report not produced. In the policy certificate there is no mention that letter of subrogation, under taking or indemnity  are to be produced for settlement of claim. Letter of subrogation, generally deals in the matter of mortgage. Sometimes mortgager or mortgage is to be subrogated. We have gone through the policy certificate meticulously. In the policy certificate it is written that claim for theft of the vehicle is not payable if theft not reported to the company within 48 hours of the occurrence. In this case within 24 hours of the occurrence theft was reported to the company. Secondly, it is written that claim is not admissible if the driving license is fake or not valid. In this instant case no such contention is raised by the Insurance company about the driving license. The contention of the Insurance company is only about the non-submission of letter of indemnity, Subrogation, letter of under taking, NCMB report etc. Petitioner produced police report, FIR and other papers relevant to the bike i.e., registration policy certificate etc. Those are not taken into consideration and Insurance company insisted for production of letter of subrogation indemnity and other documents. This is not proper service at all. Insurance company is to be satisfied about the theft of the vehicle. Police report and other papers definitely support the fact of theft. Police reported unknown miscreants stolen away the bike after proper investigation. This report was not considered by the Insurance company. This is deficiency of service. In the year 2015 advocate's notice was given by the petitioner. In response of that letter it was informed that claim is repudiated. This is again deficiency of service by the Insurance company. The claim is not barred by limitation as Insurance company did not communicate about the repudiation of the claim before 2015. So, finally cause of action arise in the year 2015 when the case was filed. From the analysis of the record we are satisfied that there is deficiency of service  of the O.P. Petitioner is therefore, entitled to get compensation for deficiency of service. Both the points are decided accordingly.

10.        In view of our findings over the two points we direct the Insurance company to pay insured amount of Rs.83,591/- after depreciation of 5% value as per terms of the policy. We also direct the Insurance company to pay the petitioner compensation amounting to Rs.25,000/- for deficiency of service and also pay Rs.10,000/- for cost of litigation. In total we direct the O.P. Insurance company to pay Rs.83,591/- with 5% depreciation + Rs.35,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation. Amount is to be paid within 2(two) months if not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A. Supply copy of the judgment. 
  
                              Announced. 

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.