DATE OF DELIVERY : 15th April, 2016
: J U D G M E N T :
The petitioner, Sanjoy Mistri has filed the instant case against the opposite party Branch manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Krishnanagar Branch u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Case of the petitioner in brief:-
The petitioner Sanjoy Mistri insured his vehicle, Bajaj Platina K/S motor cycle (bearing no WB52F 9707) with the Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. vide policy no 313502/31/2010/4216 and the policy was valid form 09/12/09 to 08/12/2010 with a insured declared value of Rs. 25,000/-. The vehicle was stolen on 17/12/09 and after getting information about the theft, Nakashipara P.S. started a case No 608/2009 dated 28/12/09. The matter was informed to the R.T.O Nadia as well as to the opposite party and the Insurance Company appointed an investigator. The petitioner submitted all the relevant documents to the OP’s office and requested them to settle the claim but they remained silent for a long time. Petitioner went to OP’s office on several occasions and he stopped going after 13/08/2014 and decided to file a case against the OP and hence the present case. The petitioner has prayed for the following relies :-
- Direction upon the op to refund the I.D.V of Rs 25,000/- along with interest of 12% p.a. from the date of theft i.e., 11/7/09
- Direction upon the OP to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation for the harassment and mental agony of the petitioner along with litigation cost.
The OP has contested the case by filling written version on 23/04/2015 has denied each and every allegation of the petitioner and has also stated that their office never issued any insurance policy being No. 313502/31/2010/4216 in respect of the motor cycle No. WB 52F/970 for the period 09.12.09 to 08.12.10. The opposite party also submitted that he never received any claim form from the petition in respect of the theft of the motor cycle (bearing No. WB 52F/9707 and so there is no question of repudiation of claim. The OP denies any negligence or deficiency in service on his part and hence are not liable to give any compensation or cost to the petitioner.
The petitioner prayed for considering his petition as evidence and it was allowed vide order No. 8 dtd. 14.05.2015. OP filed interrogatories and the petitioner replied the queries. OP also prayed for treating his written version as evidence and the same was allowed as per order No. 22, dtd. 16.12.2015. Both parties filed BNA and was heard at length.
From the pleadings, written version and the documents filed by both parties we frame the following issues for proper adjudication of the case.
1) Whether the petitioner is a consumer under the OP.
2) Whether the petitioner suffers from deficiency in service.
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get relief from the OPs as prayed for.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
Point No. 1.
The petitioner is a consumer under the OP, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. as the latter issued a policy certificate (Policy No. 313502/31/2010/4216) in lieu of premium.
Points No. 2 & 3:
The OP, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. issued a policy certificate which reveals that the alleged motor cycle (No. WB 52 F9707) is of Bajaj Make and the period covers from 09.12.09 to 08.12.10 with a W/D/V of Rs. 25,000/- (as for Annexure – 1). The same vehicle was registered with RTO Nadia (Annexure – 2) on 18.06.2008. Tax token (Annexure – 3) shows that petitioner paid life time tax on 20.06.08 for the alleged vehicle. The petitioner’s driving licence (Annexure – 4) was valid till 10.06.12. The F.I.R. report (Annexure – 5) was lodged on 17.12.09. From the police report dtd. 24.02.16 (Annexure – 6), it is proved that the incident of theft occurred though the recovery could not be done and the miscreants could it be traced out. So it is true that the incident of theft took place and still there is no hope for the case if the police authority gets no clue. The ASI, Nakashipara P.S. has mentioned this fact in the final police report. The petitioner informed the matter to the OP vide a letter (Annexure – 7). The petitioner filed a letter issued by the OP Insurance Company on 19.01.2016 i.e., on the day of hearing which proves that the claim was lodged by the petitioner and it was repudiated by the OP. OP raised objection regarding the authenticity of the documents and got opportunity to prove the same but failed to establish that the document was a manufactured one. Hence, the Forum is of the opinion that the claim regarding the theft was submitted by the petitioner and the same was repudiated on the ground that it was not reported within 48 hours of its occurrence. The OP could not satisfy the Forum by filing relevant terms & conditions that a claim has to be submitted within 48 hours otherwise the same could not be honoured. The petitioner also failed to supply any documents to show that the in spite of submitting the claim in proper time the same was not honoured by the OP. Hence, the petitioner fails to prove his case and so is not entitled to get any relief.
IPO paid is correct.
Hence,
Ordered,
That, the case CC/2014/158 be and the same is disallowed on contest without any cost as the petitioner fails to prove his case.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
