Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/16/40

Sri Krishan Prasad Mahto - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Uttam Kumar Mahto

22 Jul 2022

ORDER

District Consumer Commission, Bokaro.

Case No. 40/2016

 Date of Filing-27-04-2016

 Date of Order-22-07-2022

                             Before:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

                                 Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

 

Sri Krishana Prasad Mahto S/o Sri Dilu Mahto

Permanent Resident- Village- Narratola, Harla Tand,

P.S.- Nawadih, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand

Presently Resident- BRL Colony, Bhandaridah, Qr.No. D-37, P.S.- Chandrapura, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand.

Vr.

1. The Manager, TATA Motor finance Co. Ltd.

City Centre, Sector-4, B.S.City, Pin 827004

2.  The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

      Divisional Office, City Centre, Sector-4,

      District- Bokaro Pin 827004

3.  Sr. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

     Divisional Office, Hindustan Building 2^nd floor,

Jamshedpur-831001

-Order-

 

Per- J.P.N Pandey, President

 

1.                  Complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction to O.Ps. to pay insurance claim of Rs. 10,13,950/- on account of damage caused to the vehicle by the mob and for payment of Rs. 7,20,000/- as loss caused due to non settlement of the claim and for payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 10,000/-  as compensation and litigation cost respectively to the complainant.
2.    Complainant’s case in brief is that he purchased Tata Tipper bearing Registration No. JH-09-J-8269 by obtaining loan from O.P. No.1 Tata Motors Finance Co. Ltd. and said vehicle was insured with O.P. No.2 the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vide Insurance Policy No. 333000/31/2010/5454 dt. 20.08.2009 valid from 04.09.2009 to 03.09.2010 of IDV value Rs. 10,13,950/- on payment of the premium Rs. 23,354/-. Further case is that while said vehicle was parked in front of the residence of the complainant, on 09.09.2009 some miscreants put that very vehicle on fire causing 100% burn for which Chandrapura P.S. Case No. 93/2009 dated 14.09.2009 was registered and at that very time complainant was under custody. Further case is that however, information was given to the Police by brother of the complainant and in that very case final form was submitted by the Police. Further case is that on 22.04.2010 complainant met with the officials of O.Ps. requesting them to settle the claim, but claim was not settled. Further case is that the O.P. No.2 insurance co. appointed Surveyor for verification of the damaged vehicle, who submitted report, then also claim was not settled inspite of expiry of more than six years period, hence Legal Notice was served on both the O.Ps. having no response. In this way it is claimed that there is gross deficiency in service by the O.Ps. Hence case has been filed.
3.   O.P. No.2 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed W.S. challenging the maintainability of the case on the ground of non disclosure of cause of action. Further case is that complaint case is time barred.  Further case as per W.S. is that complainant has not produced any record to show that vehicle was being used for his livelihood nor he produced any paper before this O.P. for any claim. Further case is that this O.P. has issued insurance Policy as mentioned in the complaint petition but there is no prompt information to this O.P. regarding occurrence dt. 09.09.2009 and damage of the vehicle concerned nor any intimation has been given by the brother of the complainant to the insurance co. nor any paper has been submitted for settlement of the claim. Further case is that complainant has made vague, baseless, averments with malafied intention, in this way there is no any deficiency in service of the this O.P. No.2.
4.     O.P. No.1 Tata Motors Finance Ltd. has filed its W.S. mentioning there in that as per terms and conditions of the agreement all disputes, differences, claims etc shall be referred to the Arbitrator. Further case of O.P. No.1 is that this Commission is having no jurisdiction to entertain this case and this O.P. is having no liability to pay any compensation rather complainant is habitual defaulter in payment of EMI.
5.      In support of claim complainant has filed photo copy of registration certificate of the vehicle concerned, photo copy of the insurance policy of the vehicle concerned, Photo copy of the certified copy of FIR and Final Report of Chandrapura P.S. Case No. 93/2009 dated 14.09.2009, photo copy of acknowledgment, photo copy of legal notice dt. 09.01.2014 and 02.03.2015 and photo copy of  letter dt. 22.04.2010 addressed to The Sr. Divisional  Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
6.    On behalf of O.P. No.2 no any evidence either oral or documentary has been filed.
7.    On behalf of O.P. No.1 photo copy of loan account statement of the complainant has been filed.
8.      On careful perusal of the pleadings of the parties it appears that fact related to purchase of the Tipper having registration No. JH-09-J-8269 and its insurance policy have been admitted by both the parties. Another admitted fact is that claim of the complainant has not been repudiated by the Insurance Co.
9.     There is denial regarding facts related to 100% damage of the vehicle due to burn. Another fact has been denied in respect to prompt intimation by the informant either to the P.S. concerned or on his behalf to the Insurance Co. in respect to concerned occurrence of burning. It is also challenged that this case is time barred and there is no cause of action of the case.
10.     In this way main point for consideration is that (a) Whether case is time barred and there is cause of action for the case ? (b) Whether timely intimation to the Insurance Co. was given for settlement of the claim? ( c ) Whether prayer of the complainant is liable to be accepted or not ?
11.    For the sake of convenience all the points are being decided jointly. As per case occurrence of burning was occurred on 09.09.2009. Photo copy of the FIR is disclosing the fact that information to the Police was given on 14.09.2009 but time of occurrence has not been mentioned in the FIR or written report. In this way there is delay in filing of the criminal case. No any paper to show that during which period  complainant was under custody in connection with criminal case has been filed for consideration on the point of delay in communication on his behalf. No photograph of the burnt or damaged vehicle has been brought on record to show the damage by burn to the vehicle concerned to justify the claim. The letter dt. 22.04.2010 addressed to The Sr. Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. shows that on 22.04.2010 written information regarding the occurrence dt. 09.09.2009  has been given to the O.P. Insurance Co. but cause of delay in intimation has not been mentioned in it. No any paper to show the position of the damaged vehicle and the place of occurrence has been brought on record for the purpose of evidence in this case.
12.    As per complaint petition occurrence of burning occurred on 09.09.2009, alleged intimation about it to the O.P. No.2 was given on 22.04.2010 and this case has been filed on 27.04.2016 after expiry of  more than 6 years period from the date of alleged occurrence. No any copy of any type of report of the Surveyor has been brought on record. No where it has been claimed or proved that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the Insurance Co. (O.P. No.2). Further there is no evidence to show that complainant has ever applied before the O.P. No.2 by submission of dully filled up claim form and other papers for settlement of claim. Hence without submission of claim form and without repudiation of the claim this case has been filed which shows that there was no cause of action of the case.
13.    It reveals from the record that vide order dt. 30.04.2016 this case has been admitted but there is no order in respect to condonation of delay in filing the case. As per Provision of Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act. 2019 corresponding to section 24 (A) of Consumer Protection Act. 1986 it is statutory binding on the Commission/Forum to record its reasons for condonation of delay but order dt. 30.04.2016 is silent on this aspect. Hence I have taken up this point for decision at the time of final disposal of the case.
14.     Learned Counsel for the complainant has shown section 9 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy Holder’s Interests) Regulations 2002 which is related to intimation in respect to any miss-happening related to insured. Accordingly information regarding loss or claim is require to be given at the earliest or within such extended time as may be allowed by the insurer and after its receipt in case surveyor is to be appointed, then survey is required to be done within 72 hours on receipt of intimation. Here in this case facts are different rather intimation to the Insurance co. has been given on 22.04.2010 in respect to occurrence dt. 09.09.2009 which has been given about 8 months late after the occurrence. In this way this provision is not helpful for the complainant rather it is in support of the O.Ps.
15.     Learned Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 3883/2007 and 1156/2008 decided on 07.04.2017. The facts and circumstance of that very case are different from the facts and circumstance of this case hence principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above noted case are not helpful for the complainant.
16.     In light of above discussion I am of the opinion that the complainant failed to disclose the cause of action of the case. The complainant has not shown any reasonable cause for condonation of delay in filing the case after lapse of more than six year period. Therefore, it is apparent that case is hopelessly time barred. Since there is no reliable and believable evidence  regarding approach by the complainant  to the O.P. No.2 for settlement of the claim hence I am of the opinion that without repudiation of the claim by competent Authority this case is not maintainable. To sum up the discussion I am of the opinion that there is no cause of action of the case, case is hopelessly time barred and without repudiation of the claim case has been filed which is not maintainable and complainant has not filed any paper to show that he has submitted claim form before the O.Ps. for settlement of the claim. Accordingly above points are being decided against the complainant.
17.     In light of above discussion I am of the opinion that complaint petition is liable to be dismissed, hence it is being dismissed. In the facts and circumstance of the case parties shall bear their own cost.