This is a complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer for an order directing the O.P. to pay sum of Rs.61,000/- to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/-, litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- and any other reliefs to the complainant.
The complaint case in short is that the complainant is the owner of a vehicle/ bike namely Honada Unicorn being registration No. WB-60F/6300, which insured under the O.P. being policy No. 313501/31/2012/367 valid from 12.04.2011 to 11.04.2012. During the insurance coverage period on 14.12.2011 at night he reached his house by riding with his above noted vehicle and keeping it in his house with lock and key and thereafter he went to sleep. After that the complainant week up at midnight and found that his bike was stolen by someone, it may be some unknown miscreants from his house. As a result the complainant lodged a complaint before the local Police Station and also informed to the Insurance Company and submitted the claim before the O.P. office. But without any reason the O.P. did not pay his claim. So, finding no other alternative complainant filed this complaint before this Forum to get proper relief.
On the other hand, the O.P. by filing W.V. has contested this case denying all the material allegations against him made by the O.P. rather contended that the case is not maintainable in its present form and law. Their specific case is that the complainant had filed another case being No. 20/13 in this Forum against the same O.P. on the same ground and the said case has been dismissed for default without any cost; the complainant filed claim without policy particulars in time and he did not informed the company within stipulated period after the said incident. So, the O.P. prays for dismissal of the petition of the complainant with cost.
To establish the complaint case, the complainant has relied upon an affidavit-in-chief sworn by him upon some documents and upon his own statement recorded as P.W.1.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
Giving due consideration to the contents of the complaint petition, documentary evidence on record, hearing, argument advanced by the Lawyers of both sides, the Ld. Forum has come to the findings as follows: -
It is admitted fact that the complainant is an owner of the vehicle being No.WB-60F/6300 and has a Motor Insurance Policy of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, being policy No.313501/31/2012/367, valid from 12.04.2011 to 11.04.2012, for total value of Rs.59,421/-.
It is proved from the documents, certified copy of the FIR, FRT and order dated 11.03.2014 passed by the Ld. CJM, Raiganj that the said vehicle has stolen by unknown miscreants on night of 14/15.12.2011 around 02:00 hrs. and the photocopy of the insurance policy filed by the O.P. shows that theft was occurred during the insurance coverage.
The O.P. has alleged that before filing of this case, the complainant filed another case being No. 20/13 in this Forum against the same O.P. on the same ground and the said case has been dismissed for default without any cost; so as per the O.P.’s statement, this case should not be entertained further according to law. Though the allegation as made by the O.P. is more or less admitted by the complainant in the time of his cross-examination but on scrutiny of the record it has been revealed that the consumer case being No.20/13 was dismissed for default before hearing of the case on the ground of absence of the complainant without taking any step. So, there was no reasoned order for dismissal of the above noted consumer case on the merit. So, the objection raised by the O.P. is not sustainable.
The other allegations of the O.P. were that the complainant has not furnished the policy particulars with the claim petition in time and did not inform the matter to the company within stipulated period as per their policy condition after occurrence; so, the O.P. could not settled the complainant’s claim. But, in this case, these allegations of the O.P. should also be ignorable as because they did not file any such documents which can prove or support its above allegations about non-settlement of the complainant’s claim. So, it is clear from the above discussion that there is negligence on the part of the O.P. is proved in this case. Moreover, in this case all the papers submitted by the complainant are sufficient to make a favourable case in his favour. So, we decided that the complainant has able to prove his case that the vehicle-in-question was stolen during the insurance coverage period and the O.P. can’t be avoid the liability in this case. And, so, we decided the case with the following order:-
Fees paid are correct.
Hence, it is
ORDERED,
That the consumer complaint being No. CC - 04/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest without cost.
The complainant do get an order of Rs.59,421/-as sum assured money and also a compensation of Rs.1,000/- together with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- against the O.P., which in total is Rs.61,421/- and be paid within one month from the date of passing of this order, failing which the awarded amount will carry interest @ 9% p.a. till full realization; failing which the complainant will be at liberty to realize his claim in accordance with law.
Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
