OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI-03
C.C.48/2008
Present:-
1) Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2) Smti ArchanaDekaLahkar - Member
3) Md Jamatul Islam - Member
Shri Prahlad Kumar Ojha -Complainant
S/O- Late Moolchand Ojha
R/O- Jyoti Path, Dhirenpara
C/O- M/S Pioji Tea Company, M.S.Road
Fancy Bazar, P.O- Guwahati
Kamrup, Assam
-VS-
The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.party
Registered Office- Oriental House,
P.B No-7037, A-25/27
Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002 &
Beltola Branch Office at Basistha Chariali,
Guwahati-781028, Dist-Kamrup,Assam
Appearance:
Ld advocate Mr T.C.Das for the complainant and Ld advocate Ms Mamani Choudhury for the opp. party .
Date of argument - 29/05/2018
Date of judgment - 29/06/2018
JUDGMENT
This is a proceeding U/S- 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
1. The complaint filed by Shri Prahlad Kr Ojha against Oriental Insurance Company Limited was admitted on 17/07/2008 and notice was served upon the opposite parties and the opposite party filed written statement on 20/03/2009 and thereafter the complainant filed his evidence on 28/07/2009 and he was cross examined by the complainant side. The complainant has also filed additional affidavit on 04/05/2016 and he was again cross examined by the opposite party side on the additional affidavit on 12/07/2016 . The opp. party side filed affidavit of one Shri Balen Sarmah and he was cross examined by the complainant side. The complainant filed written argument first on 20/12/2013 and also filed additional argument on 03/11/2016 . The counsel of opp. party Ms Mamani Choudhury filed written argument on 26/08/2014 and filed her additional written argument on 09/12/2016 and finally on 29/05/2018 we have heard oral argument of Ld advocate Mr T.C. Das for the complainant and of Ld advocate Ms Mamani Choudhury for the opposite party and fixed the day of 15/06/2018 for delivery of judgment but on that day we failed to deliver the judgment due to over works and today we deliver our judgment which is as below-
2. The case of the complainant in brief, is that the vehicle (Van) of the complainant Sri Prahlad Kumar Ojah ,Registration No-AS-01-U-1425 purchased on being financed by Indian Bank , Guwahati Branch , issued with Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. ,Beltola Branch vide Policy No-321206/5/147/31/1916/2007 was sent to Tezpur on hire on 27/12/2006 being driven by its driver Sri Mahinder Rava but the said driver did not come back for ¾ days with the vehicle and he did not get whereabouts and then one of his relative Sri Kailash Sarma lodged F.I.R at Fancy Bazar police outpost on 30/12/2006 about that incident and also communicated the opp. party by a letter dtd.30/12/2006 about that fact . He ,inspite of his best efforts and rigorous search fail to gather information in relation to the missing vehicle as well as the driver, and he being confirmed that the vehicle having been stolen by the driver he intimated the DTO, Guwahati ,Ulubari about the matter and requested him not to effect any transfer of the said vehicle and also asked the police to continue investigation filing a fresh FIR on 11/01/2007 and also inform the opp. party the matter afresh; and he also vide letter dtd.30/03/2007 informed his bank (creditor) about the matter with a request to them to give the duplicate key of the vehicle which was in their possession to him to start the process of claiming damages from the insurance company. He also filed the claim before the opposite party claiming compensation but the opposite party asked him to file documents like final police report , copy of driving licence, duplicate key, letter of indemnity , letter of subrogation and quotation from the dealer as on date of theft vide letter dtd.11/06/2007. But opposite party vide letter dtd.12/07/2007 made similar demand . He submitted police report obtained from Fancy bazar police outpost , a duplicate key, letter of indemnity , letter of subrogation and the quotation from the dealer account on the date of the theft , but he couldnot submitted copy of the driving licence, the original registration certificate and some other relevant documents which were required to be kept in the vehicle as per provision of Motor Vehicle Act as these documents were in the said vehicle which was not traced and the driver was also not traced , but submitted photo copies of the R/C to the oppposite party for processing his claim and he also submitted demanded documents except the driving licence vide his letter dtd.20/07/2007 . Later on, he submitted copy of the charge sheet to the opposite party vide his letter dtd.30/08/2007. Inspite of that, the opposite party vide its letter dtd.24/08/2007 asked him to submit certified copy of charge sheet . The copy of charge sheet is sufficient proof of the alleged theft and it is more than sufficient to process and settle the claim filed by him; and in such situation asking him for submitting final report is unwarranted . The certified copy of chargesheet submitted is not required to be signed by the magistrate 1st class as contended by the opposite party in their letter dtd.24/08/2007; and there is also no law in vogue where a certified copy of a document is attested or signed by a gazetted officer or a 1st class magistrate . By not settling his claim the opposite party committed deficiency of service towards him. The value of the lost vehicle was Rs.3,79,673/- as per quotation of M/S French Motor Car Co.Ltd. bearing No-FMC/FO/GPB/680 dtd.22/06/2007 which was submitted to the opposite party. By not settling the claim by the opposite party, the opposite party caused harassment and mental agony and therefore the opposite party is liable to pay him the cost of the vehicle i.e. Rs.3,79,673/- with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of the claim and also paid compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing harassment and mental agony to him alongwith the cost of proceeding etc.
3. The gist of pleading of the opposite party is that there is no cause of action for the complaint, the complaint is not maintainable ; the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Sec-2(ii)(d) of Consumer Protection Act,1986 ; the complainant has no locus standi to sue under the policy of insurance . This forum has got no jurisdiction to adjust this complaint. There was no negligence or deficiency of service on their part. They have not verified the insurance policy and if in verification it is found that , the policy was invalid then they would deny the claim of the complainant filing the addditional written statement . The photocopies as submitted by the complainant cannot be relied at all. The complainant failed to submit some documents in order to scrutinise the claim and for that reason the claim has not been settled inspite of completion of all formalities and as such complainant is not entitled to any compensation . The value of the vehicle was not Rs.3,79,673/- as quoted by M/S French Motor Car Co.Ltd. . As the complainant failed to submit some required documents the claim couldnot be proceessed and that fact doesnot amount to cause harassment to the complainant and therefore complainant is not entitled to any kind of award or relief from them and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. We have perused the pleading of the parties as well as their evidence . We have found that, it is both sides admitted fact that , the complainant Shri Prahlad Kr Ojha insured his vehicle (Van) with the opposite party vide Insurance Policxy No-32/206/5/147/31/1916/2007 and during the effectiveness of the said policy the said vehicle of the complainant was missing alongwith its driver from 27/12/2006 and about that fact one of the complainant’s relative namely Shri Kailash Sarma on 30/12/2006 lodged one FIR with Fancybazar Branch Police Outpost and also informed the opposite party vide letter dtd.30/12/2006 about that fact and he himself also filed another FIR on 11/01/2007 and he vide letter dtd.08/01/2007 requested DTO ,Kamrup not so effect any transfer of the said vehicle . This admission of the both parties infers that, the concerned vehicle was missing since 27/12/2006 while it was sent to Tezpur from Guwahati on hire driven by its driver Shri Mahinder Rava and said driver has also been missing, and till today whereabouts of the vehicle is not known and the driver couldnot be searched out by the police or by the complainant.
5. The complainant states that the police Charge-sheeted the FIR lodged by him and Ext-13 is the copy of the chargesheet dtd.26/07/2007. After perusing Ext-13 , it is found that the complainant lodged an FIR with the Fancybazar outpost ,Guwahati in connection of missing of his said vehicle alongwithits driver, and the FIR was registered as Panbazar Police Station Case No-09/2007 dtd.11/01/2007 under Sec-381( IPC) and chargesheet the case against the driver of the said vehicle Shri Mahinder Rava implicating him that he had committed offence under Sec-406 IPC in respect of said vehicle showing him absconding. The opposite party side admitted that the said document was submitted to them by the complainant. After perusing the said chargesheet we have found that the driver of the said vehicle committed theft in respect of the said vehicle on 27/12/2006 while he was plying the said vehicle to Tezpur on hire. So, it is a case of theft punishable under Sec-381(IPC) not a case under Sec-406(IPC) and the certified copy of chargesheet which is Ext-13 is the clear proof of commission of theft in respect of the said vehicle of the complainant by driver Shri Mahinder Rava .
6. It is already found that the complainant submitted a police report from the Fancybazar Police Outpost , the duplicate key, letter of indemnity , letter of subrogation and the quotation from the dealer but failed to submit driving licence of the driver , R/C of the vehicle and the Insurance Policy as these documents were missing alongwith the vehicle as a result of keeping these documents in the said vehicle complying the provisions of Motor Vehice Act . Thus , we found that, the complainant has sufficient ground for not furnishing these documents to the opposite party. It is also found that the complainant filed the certified copy of the chargesheet to the opposite party and in result no further documents remain unfurnished and hence in situation our opinion is that the opposite party is not justified in asking the complainant to furnish further documents and they could have also investigated about the D/L and R/C in the office of the D.T.O , if they have any doubt about those documents but they have not done it. They also have not denied genuineness of R/C ,D/L and Insurance Policy. Thus it is established that, the vehicle has genuine R/C and the policy as well as its driver has also genuine driving licence. We have also seen that, the complainant filed a quotation about the value of the said vehicle issued by M/S French Motor Car Co. ,Guwahati to the opposite party where it is mentioned that the value of the said vehicle on the date of its theft was Rs.3,79,673/- . Thus we are of opinion that even after furnishing all required documents by the complainant, the opposite party has not settled the claim of the complainant, and such act on the part of the opposite party is a clear deficiency of service towards the complainant and is also an act of unfair trade practice ; and therefore the opposite party is liable to pay the value of the lost vehicle i.e. Rs.3,79,673/- to the complainant with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing this complaint (23/05/2008).
7. By not settling the lawful claim of the complainant , the opposite party caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant and as such we are of opinion that, the opposite party is liable to pay atlest Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant alongwith another amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceeding.
8. Summing up our discussion as above we hold that, the complainant has a prima facie case against the opposite party namely- The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. , New Delhi and he has succeeded to prove his case against the opposite party. Hence , the complaint against the opposite party, the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. is allowed on contest and the opposite party is directed to pay the value of the vehicle i.e.Rs.3,79,693/- to the complainant with interest @6% per annum from 23/05/2008 and to pay him compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- as well as Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceeding. They are directed to satisfy the award within 60 days , in default, the other amounts shall also carry interest in the same rate.
Given under our hands and seal today on this 29th June, 2018.
(Smt Archana Deka Lahkar) (Md.Jamatul Islam) (Md Sahadat Hussain)
Member Member President
