IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC 107/2013.
Date of Filing: 26.08.2013 Date of Final Order: 30.11.2017.
Complainant: Madan Mohan Sarkar, S/O Late Rampada Sarkar, Vill. Hatibagan,
P.O.&P.S. Jiaganj, Dist. Murshidabad.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Berampore Branch,
K.K. Banerjee Road, P.O.&P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya …………………. President.
Sri Manas Kumar Mukherjee …………………….. Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyy-President.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant U/S 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for payment of Rs.36,798/- along with interest @12%p.a. from the date of occurrence till realization for theft of insured motor cycle and compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental pain and agony and Rs.5,000/- for litigation cost.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant purchased one TVS Scooty being registration No. WB 58P3593 in the year 2010 for Rs.36,798/- and was insured with OP-Insurance Company and the same was stolen while he stayed at Bangalore during the period from 25.11.2010 to 18.01.2011 for his treatment for Cervical Spondylitis when he had to undergo operation at Sita Bhatiya Hospital, Bangalore. Returning to his residence at Jiaganj he found that his said insured Scooty was stolen and on 19.1.2011 forthwith lodged FIR with Jiaganj P.S. and police started Jiaganj P.S. Case No. 20/11 dated 19.01.2011 U/s 379 IPC and FRT was submitted with the observation that the said Scooty was stolen. The complainant informed the said incident to the OP-Insurance Company on 20.1.11 for settlement of the claim of Rs.36, 798/- towards value of stolen insured motor cycle but no result. Then, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. Hence, the instant complaint petition.
The written version filed by the OP-Insurance Company, in brief, is that the complainant has suppressed the material fact as to his stay at Bangalore for the period from 25.11.10 to 18.1.11 for his treatment. During investigation the appointed Investigator of the OP-Insurance Company collected the reservation ticket of the complainant and found that they returned to their house on 12.12.10 and for that delay in lodging the FIR for the alleged theft is suspicious. Delayed intimation to the OP-Insurance Company is violation of the terms of the policy. The OP asked for the original document of the Vehicle along with two sets of Ignition Key and the Final Report duly accepted by A.C.J.M. The complainant also failed to submit the same. The complainant violated the terms of the policy. The act of the complainant raises doubt regarding the authenticity of the alleged theft. The Investigator submitted a report in that respect. There was no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of this Opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the instant written version.
Considering the pleadings of both sides the following points have been raised for disposal of the case.
Points for Decision.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable in its present form and in law?
- Whether the complainant is a consumer under the ambit of C. P. Act, 1986?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with Reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 4.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The instant complaint is for payment of Rs.36,798/- along with interest @12%p.a. from the date of occurrence till realization for theft of insured motor cycle and compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental pain and agony and dRs.5,000/- for litigation cost.
The complainant’s main case is that returning from Bangalore on 19.1.11 he found that his insured Scooty purchased for Rs.36,978/- in the year 2010 was stolen and lodged FIR on 19.1.11 and intimated the same to OP-Insurance Company on 20.1.11 and claimed Rs.36,978/- for theft of insured vehicle but in vain.
On the other hand the OP”s case is that the complainant has suppressed the material fact as to his stay at Bangalore for the period from 25.11.10 to 18.1.11 for his treatment. During investigation the appointed Investigator of the OP-Insurance Company collected the reservation ticket of the complainant and found that they returned to their house on 12.12.10 and for that delay in lodging the FIR , the fact as to filing FIR is suspicious. Delayed intimation to the OP-Insurance Company is violation of the terms of the policy. The OP asked for the original document of the Vehicle along with two sets of Ignition Key and the Final Report duly accepted by A.C.J.M. The complainant also failed to submit the same. The complainant violated the terms of the policy.
To prove the case the complainant has adduced evidence-on-affidavit along with the relevant documents in support of this case.
On the other hand the OP has adduced relevant documentary evidence in support of their case to challenge the case of the complainant.
In this case the ld. Lawyer for the OP has vehemently challenged the case as to barred by limitation and that the case of alleged theft of the TVS Scooty of the complainant is doubtful.
The OP has also challenged the case of the complainant as to his stay in Bangalore during the period from 25.11.10 to 18.01.11 for his treatment producing the Railway Reservation Ticket as to return to Howrah i.e residence from Guntakal Station on 10.12.2010.
Admittedly, the complainant informed the alleged incident of theft to the OP-Insurance Company on 20.01.2011 where FIR was lodged on 13.01.2011.
The main challenge of the OP-Insurance Company is that the complainant actually returned on 10.12.2010 and for that the instant information is delayed information and as such they could not investigate the alleged case of theft in time. This delayed intimation as to theft of insured vehicle is vital violation of terms of policy. Also, two sets Ignition Keys in original of the alleged stolen scooty as called for were not supplied by the complainant to the OP-Insurance Company.
The complaint has not adduced any document to establish that he supplied the impugned two sets ignition keys in original to the OP as called for by letter dt. 03.07.2012.
Also, there is clear suppression of material fact as to stay in Bangalore for the period from 25.11.2010 to 18.01.2011 for his treatment in the FIR.
From the reservation ticket filed by the OP , it is clear that the complainant returned to his residence by train from Guntakal Station boarding on 10.12.2010 and for absence of any rebuttable evidence against this piece of evidence from the side of the complainant, it is clear that the complainant returned on 11.12.2010 reveals from the above ticket and for that it is palpable clear that there was sufficient delay in loading the FIR as well as intimation as to alleged theft of insured vehicle to the OP-Insurance Company in time.
It is also settled law that the delayed intimation to the OP-Insurance Company is vital violation of the terms of policy and the same is fatal to the complainant’s case.
Further, it appears that the complainant has failed to adduce any document to show that he gave the two sets of ignition keys in original of the alleged stolen insured Scooty to the OP as called for.
This is very vital to prove that the vehicle was stolen
Considering the above discussions as a whole we can safely conclude that the complainant has hopelessly failed to establish his case and as such we have no other alternative but to hold that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and as such the complainant is liable to be dismissed without any cost.
Hence,
Ordered
That the Consumer Complaint No. 107/2013 be and the same is hereby dismissed on merit without any cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
