IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC/106/2018.

 Date of Filing:              Date of Admission:        Date of Disposal:

   06.06.18                                    09.07.18                                04.12.19

Complainant:AktarulHaque

                        S/o Lt. KalamSk

                        Vill-Bogdadnagar

                        PO-Chaksapur

                        PS-Samserganj

                        Dist-Murshidabad

                        Pin-742202

-Vs-

Opposite Party:The Manager

                        United Insurance Co. Ltd.      

                        3/20/A, K.K. Banerjee Road

                        Gorabajar, PO&PS-Berhampore

                        Dist-Murshidabad

                        Pin-742101

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Babul Akhtar

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party         : Sri. Siddhartha SankarDhar.

Present:  Sri AsishKumarSenapati………………….......President.

Smt. AlokaBandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

AlokaBandyopadhyay, Member.

            One AktarulHaque (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the caseagainst Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd.(here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

   The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

            The Complainant had a TVS Apache RTR 160 motor cycle being registration No. WB94B7536 and this motor cycle was insured with United Insurance Co. being policy covered note No. 0314053115N100224344. On 16.08.16 the complainant  went to the Jamianager and the said motor cycle has been garaged atJamianagar near the Godown of MujibarRahaman. After return from the work, the Complainant found that the motor cycle was missing. The Complainant immediately went to inform the matter to Samserganj PS but before lodging the FIR, the police personnel asked for the necessary papers of the motor cycle and after collecting the necessary papers, the Complainant lodged the FIR before Samserganj PS on 08.09.16 and informed the matter to the OP on 20.09.16. After getting the information the OP sent an investigator for investigation the matter and on 03.11.16 through a letter the OP repudiate the claim of the Complainant.

            Finding no other alternative the Complainant filed the instant case before this Forum for appropriate relief.

            After service of the notice, the OP appeared by filing written version contending inter alia that as per terms of the policy notice any accidentally claim or damage shall be given in writing to company immediately. But the Complainant informed the OP after the lapse of one month four days. Moreover, the Complainant has lodged the FIR after lapse of 23/24 days from the date of lodged theft. As the Complainant has not complied the terms of the policy, the OP had no other alternative but to repudiate the Complainant’s claim. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the case is liable to be rejected.

            On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :

Points for consideration

2. whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?

Decision with reasons

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as he hired services of the OP for consideration.

On going through the complaint, and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of the Complainant and the O.P, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986.

Undoubtedly, the Complainant is the owner of the TVS Apache RTR 160 motor cycle being registration No. WB94B/7536 and this motor cycle was insured with United Insurance Co. (o.p) being policy covered note No. 0314053115N100224344 and the same has been stolen by some miscreant which was informed to the Samserganj PS through FIR vide Annexure (3 ). The Complainant has informed the matter to the OP on 20.09.16 claiming the insured amount of Rs.73,586/-. But the OP though sent the investigator  butrepudiated the claim as Complainant has informed the matter to the OP after lapse of 35 days from the date of alleged theft which was against the policy norms of the OP.

The Complainant has not explained the reason for delay in his complaint petition wherein he has stated that immediately after the theft, the Complainant went to inform the incident to the police andit was stated by police personnel that for investigation of the said theft they required all papers of the motor cycle and collecting all the documents it took some days. But the plea of the Complainant is not acceptable to us as because the Complainant has not taken any initiative to inform the matter to the Insurance company  immediately. It may be a fact that the police personnel asked for the relevant document for investigation but information can be given by way of GD or letter addressing to the higher authority and in the petition of the complaint there was no utterance about the reason for delay in providing information to the insurance company. At the time of the argument no satisfactory reason has been assigned  to condone  the delay to inform the insurance company.       The insurance companyin the letter of repudiation stated that the vehicle was stolen on 16/08/16 and as per FIRcopy the incident reported to police on 06/09/16 that is after 21 days of occurrence and to the insurance company on 20/09 2016 i.e. after 35 days leaving no scope for them to initiate immediate action at their end.             

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed before us and the argument advanced by both the parties we are of the opinion that the Complainant is unable to prove his case as no satisfactory reason shown before us for  delay to inform the O.P It is also not clear to us what restrained him to inform the O.P immediately. If the complainant informed the matter immediately the O.P.might get opportunity to investigate on their own way but the same has been denied ,so in our considered view we find no deficiency on the part of the O.P in repudiating the claim of the complainant.so the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 06.06.18 and admitted on 09.07.18 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day order.

Fees paid are correct.

In the result, the complaint case fails. Hence, it is

                                 ORDERED

that the Consumer Complaint Case No. CC/106/2018 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP without cost.

Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

          Member

Member                                                                                    President.