DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 13 of 2019

 

 

Sri Sukdeb Debbarma,

S/O. Lt. Debendra Chandra Debbarma,

Of Mura Para, Vill.-West Takarjala,

District-Sepahijala Tripura,

Pin-799102.

 

Presently residing at: 

Nutan Palli, Krishnanagar,

P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala,

District-West Tripura. ......................Complainant.

 

    -VERSUS-

 

1. The Operation Manager,

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, 

     1st Floor, 14, T. G. Road,

Bank of Baroda Building, Ramnagar,

Agartala, Tripura(West),

Pin-799001.

 

2. The Zonal Operation Manager,

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited,

Constantia Office Complex, 2nd Floor,

11, U.N. Brahmachari Street, 

Kolkata – 700017.

 

3. The Vice President(Operation)

Registered Office at -

Peninsula Business Park

Tower – A, 15th Floor,

G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, 

Mumbai-400013. ......................... Opposite parties.

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SRI UMESH DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. Dr BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Suman Kumar Banik,

  Sri Bhabani Rn. Bhattacharjee,

  Advocates.

 

For the O.Ps.  : Smt. Puspita Chakraborti,

  Advocate.  

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  23.12.2019

 

J U D G M E N T

The Complainant, Sri Sukdeb Debbarma, filed one complaint  U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against present O.P. Nos.1, 2 & 3 seeking redress for deficiency of service and gross negligence on the part of the O.Ps.

 

2. Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant purchased one Yamaha FZS V2 motor cycle which was duly insured with the O.P.No.1 vide policy No. 064001/ 0120145464/ 000000/ 00, for a period of 09/08/2017 to 08/08/2018 for sum assured Rs.1,15,269/-. Unfortunately on 12/05/2018 between 2.30 A.M. to 3.30 A.M. the said bike was stolen by miscreants from the house of the Complainant. The Complainant immediately reported the incident to the West Agartala P.S. on 13/05/2018 and accordingly a G.D. Entry was made vide West Agartala P.S. GDE No.21 dated 13/05/2018. Thereafter on the basis of a written complaint a case was registered vide West Agartala P.S. Case No. 2018 WAG 137 dated 23/06/2018 U/S 457/380 of IPC and after investigation the said case was ended in final report which was given vide West Agartala P.S. F/R(T)No.55/2018 dated 31/07/2018. The complainant further stated in his complaint that the matter of theft was also intimated to the O.P. Nos.1 & 2. Though several communications were made by the Complainant but the O.P. No.2 denied to satisfy the genuine claim of the complainant on ground that incident of theft was registered as FIR after 42 days from the date of theft and that as per provision of policy condition No.1, no insurance claim benefit could provided due to non intimation of the incident of theft immediately by the Complainant to the O.Ps. 

According to the Complainant, the O/C, West Agartala P.S. provided a certificate to the Complainant dated 29/11/2018 in which it was written that the Complainant made a G.D. Entry about the said incident of theft on 13/05/2018 which was immediately after the incident of theft.   

As the O.Ps refused to provide insurance claim benefit to the Complainant so according to the complainant this conduct of the O.Ps amounts to gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps and thus caused serious mental anxiety and financial loss to the Complainant. Due to this the Complainant claimed Rs.1,15,269/- as insurance claim benefit and Rs.2 lac as compensation with 12% interest against the O.Ps. 

 

3. In due course of time notices were served upon the O.Ps. from the Forum. The Opposite Parties filed their W.O. on 21/06/2019. The Opposite Parties have stated in their written objection that the alleged incident of theft of the motor cycle happened during the midnight of 12/05/2018 but the Complainant did not lodge any FIR before the Police immediately after the incident rather he filed the FIR after 42 days. The delay in lodging the FIR according to the OPs hampered proper investigation which further jeopardized the chances of recovery of the motor bike. As the Complainant violates the policy condition No.1 of the motor bike so there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. in repudiating the claim of the complainant and as such the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed. The O.Ps. also stated that though the complainant mentioned about the GDE No.21 dated 13/05/2018 but the copy of the said GDE was never produced before the O.P. for consideration. The O.Ps have thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.        Evidence adduced by the Parties:-

                 The Complainant has submitted his Examination in chief and also 10 documents comprising 13 sheets in support of his case. These documents were marked as Exhibit – 1 Series.

                   One witness was also produced on behalf of the OPs and the said witness was cross–examined. On behalf of the OPs 3 documents were filed. These were marked as Exhibit – A  Series.

 

5. Points to be determined:-

(i) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs towards the complainant?

(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation/ relief as prayed for ?

6. Decision and reason for decision:-

We have heard arguments advanced by both sides Advocates and have also gone through the citation reffered to by Ld. Advocate for the complainant which has been reported in (2017) 4 CPJ at page – 446.   

            It is evident fron the case record that the complainant had reported the incident of theft of his motor bike to the West Agartala PS immediately after the incident on 13.05.18 and GDE was accordingly prepared by the police in the West Agartala PS on 13.05.18 vide West Agartala P/S  GDE No.21 dated 13.05.2018. As per prayer of the complainant this Forum directed the O/C, West Agartala PS to furnish copy of the GDE dt.13.05.18. The O/C has accordingly furnished the copy of the GDE on 11.09.19 to this Forum. It is true that formal FIR was lodged on 23.06.18 by the complainant. The complainant can not be balmmed for it as he had already made the GDE with the West Agartala P.S. immediately after the incident. Moreover, the complainant in his complaint as well as in his evidence in chief has asserted that immediately after the incident of theft of his motor bike he reported the matter to the OP Insurance Company also. We find that the OPs didn't deny this fact while the complainant was being cross examined by them. The OPs didn't take the plea that the complainant resorted to fabricated story of theft of his motor bike. We find that the Insurance Company has not been able to state or prove anywhere, as to what prejudice had been caused to them for delayed lodging of formal FIR by the complainant to the PS. It is relevant to mention here a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in Cr.L.J. SC at page- 2322 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court opined that GDE can be treated as FIR in appropriate case, if it discloses commission of cognizable offence. Since in this case the complainat has admittedly made GDE with the West Agartala PS on 13.05.18,   just after the incident of theft of his motor bike and that he had also intimated the factum of incident of theft of his motor bike to the OP insurance Company, hence in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court the complainant is entitled to get the compensation as claimed by him. The incident of theft of the motor bike was admittedly occurred within the valid period of Insurance concerning the motor bike of the complainant.

  So considering all the aspects we are of the opinion that the OPs have repudiated the justified claim of the complainant without any reasonable ground. We accordingly opined that this is a fit case of deficiency and negligence of service on part of the OPs towards the complainant.

In  view of the discussion made above, we find and hold that the complainant has succeed in establishigg his case U/S 12 of the C.P. Act 1986. We accordingly find the OPs guilty of commiting deficiency of service towards the complainant. We also find that the complainant is entitled to get compensation. 

The issues which were framed in this case are answered accordingly.

 

7. In the result, it is hereby directed that O.Ps are to pay Rs.1,15,269/- to the complainant, being the insured value of the stolen bike of the complainant, Rs.25,000/- as compensation for causing  mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. The O.Ps shall pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,45,269/- (Rs.1,15,269/- + Rs.25,000/- + Rs.5,000/-) in total to the complainant within a period of 2(two) months from the date of judgment failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. till the payment is made in full. 

 

Announced.

 

 

SRI  BAMDEB  MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

SRI  UMESH  DAS

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

 WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SMT. DR  BINDU  PAL

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA