Date of Argument – 16-03-2021

                                                                                                         04-05-2022        

                                                                        Date of Judgment –  30/07/2022

            This C.C. case has been filed under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 by the complainant praying to direct the O.P. to pay Rs.69,590/- as the cost of the vehicle and to pay compensation of Rs.50, 000/- for mental agony, loss of time and energy and to pay the cost of suit.

Judgment

            The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant Shri Sujit Ghosh purchased a motorcycle with finance from the O.P. 3, viz. Family Credit Ltd. of Jorhat Branch and the motorbike was registered under registration No.AS06P-4079 and insured under United India Insurance Company Ltd. at Dibrugarh Branch vide policy No.1303013114P104359373 on 11.09.2014 with validity  up to 10.09.2015. The motorbike of the complainant was stolen from his garage on the night of 19.11.2014. The complainant lodged an ejahar regarding theft of his bike before the Chabua Police Station on 20.11.2014 and also informed the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 21.11.2014 regarding theft of his motorbike. The O.P. No.1 asked him to submit police report and other documents as those are mandatory clauses to settle the claim. The complainant informed the matter to the finance company, i.e. Family Credit Ltd. and requested them to suspend the payment of loan till settlement of the insurance claim. But O.P. No.3 denied to keep his request. Being bound, the complainant had to pay the EMI of the loan regularly with the hope that very soon, the insurance company, i.e. the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 will settle the claim and he will get relief from the heavy burden of loan. He filed all the documents as sought for by the O.P. on last part of December, 2014. Chabua Police Station submitted final report in connection with Chabua P.S. Case No. 151/14 upon the ejahar filed by the complainant on 19.01.2015. The complainant submitted police report to the O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2 to settle the claim of theft vehicle as soon as possible. But the O.Ps did not pay any heed to his request. On 15.03.2015, he met the O.P. No.1 to enquire about the progress of his claim settlement and O.P. No.1 told him that they could not complete the process of claim and the claim will be settled very soon. Thereafter, O.P. No.1 kept no contact with the complainant and whenever the complainant went to the office of the O.P., O.P. No. 1 showed different reasons for non-settlement of his claim and till the date of filing this complaint, O.P. No.1 neither settle the claim nor made any contact with the complainant for reasons best known to them which shows gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2. Having no alternative, the complainant became bound to file the instant complaint on 18.08.2015 before this Commission claiming cost of the stolen motorcycle amounting to Rs.69,590/- and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of the case.

            The case was registered and notices were issued to the O.Ps. All the O.Ps contested the case and filed their W/S. In their W/S, O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2 claim that the complaint is not maintainable in law and on facts as well. In as much as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps in settling the claim of the complainant in terms of the policy conditions. The complaint is pre-matured as the complainant instead of submitting the required documents for processing the claim as asked for by O.P. No.1 instituted the proceeding. The O.Ps in their W/S admit the validity of the insurance of the stolen bike of the complainant and stated that the policy No.1303013114P104359373 incorporated the name of the financer of the bike, namely Family Credit Ltd. In their W/S, the O.P. No. 1 & O.P. No.2 submit that for processing the claim, they appointed an Insurance Investigator, Shri Dibakar Gohain to investigate the matter and to submit investigation report and accordingly the said investigator submitted his report on 03.08.2015 before the O.P. No.1. It is also submitted on behalf of O.P. No. 1 & O.P. No.2 that as per endorsement of IMT clauses 7 and 22 in the policy, the Insurer has to pay the amount of claim, if found payable, of the complainant after settlement has to be paid through the financer, i.e. O.P. No.3 unless the financer issued “No Objection Certificate” against paying the amount under the policy directly to the complainant and complainant had not submit any such NOC from O.P.No.3 they asked for. O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2 claim that the claim of the complainant is frivolous and vexatious and therefore liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- as provided under Section 26 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

In their W/S, O.P. No.3, Family Credit Limited claims that the complaint petition is barred by limitation as the complaint is filed beyond the prescribed period of time under the provisions of  law. O.P. No.3 claims that the complainant had not approached and submitted any letter /application to the O.P. No.3 regarding suspension of payment of  loan installment. And as such the complainant is legally bound to repay the dues. They also denied that they took 29 Nos. of blank cheque from the complainant against the loan amount. It is pertinent to mention that till the completion of the installment of the loan, the motorbike shall be under the hypothecation of the O.P. No.3 and thereby the actual owner of the said motorbike is O.P. No.3. According to O.P. No.3, the complainant took a loan amounting to Rs.47,351/- from O.P. No.3. The O.P. No.3 also claims that the complaint of the complainant is devoid of truth and has no merit and hence same is liable to be dismissed with cost.

            In his evidence in affidavit, the complainant, Shri Sujit Ghosh deposed that he registered the motorbike bearing Registration No.AS06P-4079, Engine No.DHZCEE53599, Chassis No.MDZA11CZOE74342 on 11.09.2014 availing the finance from O.P. No.3 and on 11.09.2014 the aforesaid motorcycle was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd., Dibrugarh Branch under policy No.1303013114P104359373 validity up to 10.09.2015. In his evidence in affidavit, the complainant stated that the motorbike of the complainant was stolen from his garage on the night of 19.11.2014. The complainant lodged an ejahar regarding theft of his bike before the Chabua Police Station on 20.11.2014 and also informed the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 21.11.2014 regarding theft of his motorbike. The O.P. No.1 asked him to submit police report and other documents as those are mandatory clauses to settle the claim. The complainant informed the matter to the finance company, i.e. Family Credit Ltd. and requested them to suspend the payment of loan till settlement of the insurance claim. But O.P. No.3 denied to keep his request. Being bound, the complainant had to pay the EMI of the loan regularly with the hope that very soon, the insurance company, i.e. the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 will settle the claim and he will get relief from the heavy burden of loan. He filed all the documents as sought for by the O.P. on last part of December, 2014. Chabua Police Station submitted final report in connection with Chabua P.S. Case No. 151/14 upon the ejahar filed by the complainant on 19.01.2015. The complainant submitted police report to the O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2 to settle the claim of theft vehicle as soon as possible. But the O.Ps did not pay any heed to his request. On 15.03.2015, he met the O.P. No.1 to enquire about the progress of his claim settlement and O.P. No.1 told him that they could not complete the process of claim and the claim will be settled very soon. Thereafter, O.P. No.1 kept no contact with the complainant and whenever the complainant went to the office of the O.P., O.P. No. 1 showed different reasons for non-settlement of his claim and till the date of filing this complaint, O.P. No.1 neither settle the claim nor made any contact with the complainant for reasons best known to them which shows gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2. Having no alternative , the complainant became bound to file the instant complain on 18.08.2015 before this Commission claiming cost of the stolen motorcycle amounting to Rs.69,590/- and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of the case. In his evidence in chief, the complainant deposed that the O.P. No.3, i.e. Family Credit Ltd. at the time of sanctioning the loan took 29 Nos. of blank cheque from the complainant as security against the loan.

            In support of his complaint, the complainant exhibited as many as 15 documents along with his evidence in affidavit :

1. Ex. 1 is the Xerox copy of FIR dtd. 20.11.2014
2. Ex. 2 is the Xerox copy of police report dtd. 6.9.2015.
3. Ex. 3 is the Xerox copy of R.C. vide serial No.14151508.
4. Ex. 5 is the Xerox copy of receipt vide No.10113030114104454603.
5. Ex. 4 is the Xerox copy of Insurance Policy vide policy No.1303013114P104359373
6. Ex. 6 is the Xerox copy of Sale Certificate, dtd. 11.9.2014.
7. Ex. 7 is the Xerox copy of Retail Invoice, dtd. 11.9.2014.
8. Ex. 8 is the Xerox copy of Motor Vehicle Insurance B.O. Code-130301.
9. Ex. 9 is the Xerox copy of Application to the DTO, Dibrugarh, dtd. 04.12.2014.
10. Ex. 10 is the Xerox copy of Application to the Branch Manager, Dibrugarh , dt. 21.11.2014.
11. Ex. 11 is the Xerox copy of Reg. Chabua P.S. 151/14.
12. Ex. 12 is the Xerox copy of Family Credit Customer Copy.
13. Ex. 13      is the Xerox copy of original copy of Application dtd. 02.12.15.
14. Ex. 14 is the Xerox copy of original courier receipt, dtd. 02.04.2015
15. Ex. 15 is the Xerox copy of original courier receipt, dtd. 02.04.2015.

                 In their evidence, the O.P. No. 1 & O.P. No.2 filed evidence in affidavit of one Shri Kishalaya Sengupta, the then Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. of Dibrugarh Branch and submitted that the claim of the complainant is not maintainable under Law and on facts as well. In as much as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps in settling the claim of the complainant in terms of the policy conditions. The complaint is pre-matured as the complainant instead of submitting the required documents for processing the claim as asked for by O.P. No.1. The O.Ps in their W/S admit the validity of the insurance of the stolen bike of the complainant and stated that the policy No.1303013114P104359373 incorporated the name of the financer of the bike, namely Family Credit Ltd. In their W/S, the O.P. No. 1 & O.P. No.2 submit that for processing the claim, they appointed an Insurance Investigator, Shri Dibakar Gohain to investigate the matter and to submit investigation report and accordingly the said investigator submitted his report on 03.08.2015 before the O.P. No.1. It is also submitted on behalf of O.P. No. 1 & O.P. No.2 that as per endorsement of IMT clauses 7 and 22 in the policy, the Insurer has to pay the amount of claim, if found payable, of the complainant after settlement has to be paid through the financer, i.e. O.P. No.3 unless the financer issued “No Objection Certificate” against paying the amount under the policy directly to the complainant and complainant had not submit any such NOC from O.P.No.3 they asked for. O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2 claim that the claim of the complainant is frivolous and vexatious and therefore liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- as provided under Section 26 of the C.P. Act, 1986. The O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2 exhibited 5 documents in their evidence in affidavit. 

1. Ext. A is the office copy of the insurance policy.
2. Ext. B is the office copy of letter No.DIB:BO:Motor:Claim:0234:2015-16, dtd. 18.09.2015.
3. Ext. C is the claim form submitted by the complainant.
4. Ext. D is the police report  and
5. Ext. E is the report of the Insurance Investigator, Shri Dibakar Gohain.

            After analyzing the complaint petition, Written Statement filed by all the Opposite Parties, evidences submitted by both the parties and Written Arguments submitted by the parties, the following points are to be decided by this Commission :

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. Whether the motor bike of the complainant was stolen from his garage on 19.11.2014.

3. Whether the opposite parties are liable for deficient and negligent services towards their customer.   

4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs claimed by him in his complaint petition and to what extent, if he is so entitled.

Points Decided

1. From perusal of complaint petition it is found that the complainant is a consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such his complaint was registered as C.C. Case No.24/2015 on 18.08.2015.

2. From police report exhibited as Ext.2 by the complainant and vide Ext. ‘E’ report of Insurance Investigator filed by the opposite party it is well evident that the bike of the complainant was actually stolen on the occurrence day. Police submitted Final Report in this case vide FR No.02/2015 dtd. 29.01.2015 under section 380 of IPC and the fact is exhibited vide Ext. ‘D’ filed by the O.P. itself.

3. After submitting all the required documents for processing the claim the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 neglected to settle the legitimate claim of the complainant. As such they are found liable for their deficient service towards their consumer. The issuance of “No Objection Certificate” from the O.P. No.3 to process the claim is an internal matter in between the O.P. No.1, O.P. No.2 and O.P. No.3. The matter of issuance of “No Objection” would have been solved after processing the claim also.

             From all the above discussions we hold that the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as claimed by him in his complaint petition. The quantum of reliefs will be decided below in the sentence awarded.

            In the light of above observations this Commission comes to the conclusion that this Forum/Commission has proper jurisdictions to try the case and Forum/Commission hereby directs the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 to pay to the complainant –

1. A sum of Rs.69,590/(Rupees sixty nine thousand five hundred ninety)only as the cost of the vehicle stolen and
2. A sum of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only for mental agony, loss of time and energy including cost of the suit.

All the above amounts be deposited into the credit of this Commission by the Opposite Parties within 30 days from receipt of this judgement.

      Send copy of this judgement to the Opposite Parties for compliance.

            The instant C.C. 24/2015 is accordingly disposed on contest.