DATE OF FILING                    :     07.08.2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      09.09.2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     30.03.2015.

Dr. Sachin Thakur,

son of  Sri Raman Thakur

of 51/1/A/11, Rabindra Sarani, P.S. Liluah,

District Howrah,

PIN  711204……………………………………………………………..…….Complainant.

• Versus -

   

  1.         The Manager,  

  United India Insurance Company Ltd.,

  342 III rd floor, Vardhman DeeCee Plaza,

  Sector 11, Plot no. 7.

  Dwarka 110078,

  Phone / Fax : 011 4563979.   

   

  2.         The Manager,

  United India Insurance Company Ltd.,

  4/12 G.T. Road ( South ),

  District Howrah,

  PIN 711101. ………………..………………….…………OPPOSITE PARTIES.

   

    P    R    E     S    E    N     T

  President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

        Member       :    Shri Subrata Sarker.   

   

                                                   F  I   N   A    L       O    R   D    E     R

  1. The complainant, namely, Dr. Sachin Thakur by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.Ps. to refund Rs. 25,500/-, to pay compensation of Rs. 50000/- along with litigation costs and other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.

2. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant purchased a mobile set on payment of Rs. 25,500/- on 26.3.2011 for which it took an insurance policy from the o.ps. for the said set. Unfortunately the set was stolen and complainant lodged one F.I.R. with the local police station being no. 121 of 2011 dated 16.4.2011 vide Annexures I. The final report is also submittedby the complainant before this Forum wherein the said theft has been established vide Annexure II. Complainant informed the o.p.s about the said incident through e.mails vide Annexure. Although o.p. replied through e.mail with the assurance of immediate settlement, nothing fruitful result took place which compelled the complainant to send advocate’s letter dated 14.4.2014 vide Annexure III. Still o.ps. remained silent which caused severe mental and physical harassment to the complainant.Finding no other alternative complainant filed this complaint. Hence the case.
3. Notices were served. None of them appeared and filed written version. Accordingly the case was heard ex parte against o.p. nos. 1 & 2

4.  Two points arose for determination :

            i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

2.  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for?

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the complaint petition and the annexures submitted by the complainant. O.ps. have provided theft insurance certificate in respect to the mobile set in question and after the theft, complainant also submitted the claim form to the o.ps. vide annexure. But the o.ps. through their agents have somehow avoided the payment of claim amount to the complainant since 22.04.2011 which is nothing but gross negligence on the part of the o.ps. When the o.ps. have promised to indemnify the loss occurred due to theft by way of providing Theft Insurance Certificate, o.ps. should have done the needful long back but till the filing of this case i.e., 07.8.2014, and even after receiving the lawyer’s notice dated 14.4.2014, o.ps. remained totally silent on the issue which should not be allowed to be perpetuated. Moreover, the o.ps. have not cared to appear before the Forum even after receiving summons. No W/V has been filed by them which clearly shows that they have nothing to put forward in their favour. And the complaint petition remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. And we have no difficulty to believe the unchallenged testimony of the complainant.  O.ps. have miserably failed   to keep promise which certainly amounts to deficiency in  service coupled with unfair trade practice  on their  part which should not be allowed to be perpetuated for an indefinite period.   And we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainant  should be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 440 of 2014 ( HDF 440 of 2014 )  be  allowed ex parte against  the o.ps. with  costs.   

      The O.Ps. be jointly and severally directed to release the claim amount of  Rs. 25,500/-  to the complainant within one month from this order i.d., 9%  p.a. interest shall be charged.

      The O.Ps. are  further directed to pay  Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs within one month from this order i.d., 9%  p.a. interest shall be charged.   

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

             Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (   Jhumki Saha  )                                                         

  Member,  C.D.R.F., Howrah.