Tripura

West Tripura

CC/42/2020

Sri Binod Debbarma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Manager, Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.T.K.Deb, Mr.N.Paul, Mr.D.De.

17 Jan 2022

ORDER

THE PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE No. CC- 42 of 2020

Sri Binod Debbarma,
S/O- Sri Madan Chandra Debbarma,
Vill- Raj Kumar Para, Mandai,
P.O. Mandai, P.S. Mandai, Jirania,
West Tripura- 799045.
    
    Presently residing at:-
Dhaleswar,
    Natun Palli, Agartala,
    P.O. Dhaleswar, P.S. East Agartala,
    District: West Tripura Agartala,
    Tripura- 799001.                    ...….................Complainant.

-VERSUS-

1. The Regional Manager,
Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Sreeji Tower, 3rd Floor, C/O- Gauhati Tea
Ware Housing Pvt. Ltd.,
Adjacent to Manhindra Showroom,
Christian Basti, Guwahati- 781005.
P.O. Dispur, P.S. Dispur, District- Kamrup.

2. The Manager,
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Unit No.414, 3rd Floor,
Aitorma Agartala Sentrum,
Shakuntala Road, West Tripura,
P.O.- Agartala, P.S. West Agartala
Agartala, District- West Tripura-799001.        ..................Opposite Parties.

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 SRI RUHIDAS PAL
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

Dr (SMT) BINDU PAL
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant            : Sri Tapas Kumar Deb,
                          Sri Nirnoy Paul,
                          Sri Debabrata De,
                          Learned Advocates.
                                                    
For the O.P.                  : Sri Karnajit De,
                      Learned Advocate.

 

            JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  17.01.2022

J U D G M E N T
        The Complainants' case in short is that the complainant purchased one Motor cycle namely (Bajaj Pulsar150 Twin Disc Ebony BIK-Blue-DLK) from Sengupta Motors, L.N Bari Road, Banamalipur, Agartala on 08.10.2018. On the date of selling of the said vehicle i.e., on 08.10.2018 said Sengupta Motor issued temporary Registration Bearing no- TR 01(TEM) AQ-4409 and  valid for 30 days w.e.f. the date of purchase of the vehicle i.e., up to 06.11.2018 under Section 43 of the M.V. Act, 1988. Complainant purchased the bike taking loan of Rs.74,000/- from Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. on 08.10.2018 and paying equal monthly installment of Rs.3,130/- per month to Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. since December 2018. At the time of purchasing the bike policy was taken from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. i.e., the Opposite party with premium of Rs.9,497/- for a period of 5 years. On 28.10.2018 at about 19 hours complainant parked his bike in front of his rented house at Dhaleswar, Natun Palli and went inside the house. But within 1 hrs and 45 minutes when he came out he found his bike was missing. Complainant made GD Entry on the same day vide GD Entry no-31 dated 2810.2018. On the same day complainant also informed about the incident of theft to the O.P. and accordingly O.Ps registered a claim vide claim no- OC-19-2405-1843-00000013 of policy no-OG-19-3506-1843-00000188. Thereafter the complainant lodged one FIR before the East Agartala P.S. regarding the theft of the said bike and the said FIR was registered as East Agartala P.S. Case no- 2018 EAG222 dated 25.11.2018. The O.P. vide letter dated 02.02.2019 informed the complainant that the said vehicle has been driven without Registration at the material time of theft and asked the complainant to clarify within 7 days as to why claim should not be repudiated. The Police authority after investigation also submitted Final Report No-32/2019 before the Ld. Court on 16.05.2019 on the ground that there is no possibility to recover the said bike. The O.P. did not settle the claim of the complainant after elapse of more than 8/9 months. Complainant also sent Advocate's Notice to the O.P. for settlement of his claim on 06.01.2020. But the O.P. did not settle the claim of the complainant. The O.P. vide letter dated 02.02.2019, 25.02.2019 and 04.03.2019 informed the complainant that FIR was lodged after 28 days of the occurrence of theft for which the complainant has deliberately deprived the investigation agency and opportunity for timely to recover the vehicle. The bike was stolen just immediate 20 days of its purchase which was duly insured with the O.P. though the complainant claimed before the Insurance company but they did not settled the claim till date. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint claiming price of the vehicle, compensation for mental pain, agony, harassment and mental sufferings.      

2.        After getting notice from this Commission the O.Ps appeared and filed written statement denying the claim of the complainant. In the written statement O.Ps stated that  the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law. It is baseless case and flagrant abuse of process of law to harass and to blackmail the O.Ps. It is stated by the O.Ps that the vehicle has been purchased from Sengupta motors which is authorized dealer of the vehicle in question and the same is not made party in this Case. The vehicle has been hypothecated with Bajaj Auto finance Ltd. which is also not been made party in this case. Therefore this petition is liable to be dismissed due to non-joinder of parties.  The vehicle of the complainant was insured with the O.P. insurance company vide policy no. OG 19 3506 1843 00000188 having validity from 08th October to 2018 to 7th October 2023(midnight) which is subject to its terms, conditions and limitation thereof. The O.P. has received intimation on 31.10.2018 about the theft of the vehicle dated 28.10.2018 belatedly. FIR was also lodged on 25.11.2018 that is after 28 days of the occurrence of the theft and the complainant had deliberately deprived the investigating agency an opportunity to timely action to recover the vehicle which  leads to violation of condition no.1 of terms and conditions of the policy. After receipt of intimation from the complainant the O.P. found that the vehicle was not registered as on date of incident and was being used by the owner in violation of the provisions of Section 39 of the M.V. Act. The complainant was asked to provide clarification to the O.P. insurance company as to why his claim should not be repudiated vide correspondences dated 02.02.2019, 25.02.2019 and 04.03.2019. But the complainant could not provide any clarification or any answer to the queries. They have stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps and it is liable to be dismissed.
        
3.        EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-
        The complainant submitted his examination in chief on affidavit as P.W. 1. Also produced 9 documents which are marked as Exhibit- 1 Series.

        On the other hand, O.P. submitted examination in chief on affidavit of one witness namely Sri Narayan Choudhury,  Executive Legal Officer of Bajaj Alliaz General insurance Company Ltd.

4.             POINTS TO BE DETERMINED: -
        (ii) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?
         (iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/ relief as prayed for?
    
5.                ARGUMENTS: -
        We have heard arguments of both side at length. At the time of argument Learned Counsel Mr.T.K.Deb submitted that there was valid Insurance Policy from the O.P. in respect of the stolen motor cycle(Bajaj Pulsar 150 Twin Disk Abony BIK Blue DKL) and there was valid temporary registration number. The O.Ps illegally repudiated the insurance claim and refusal of claim amounts to deficiency of service and complainant exhibited all the relevant documents to prove the complaint and he has been able to prove his complaint. So, he is entitled to get the value of the stolen motor cycle along with compensation that mental agony harassment as well as litigation cost.
        On the other hand Learned Counsel Mr. K. De appearing for the O.P. argued that there was no valid registration certificate issued by the vehicle department and there was delay in lodging the FIR in respect of theft of the motor cycle. He further submitted that the repudiation of the claim by the O.Ps are justified and complainant is not entitled to get any compensation and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.     
 
6.        DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:-
        We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both parties as well as evidences adduced by them. From the pleadings we find that the repudiation of the claim was mainly on the ground that there was no valid registration at the time of reported theft and also the reason that FIR was lodged after 28 days of the occurrence of the theft. We perused the documents adduced by the complainant(Exhibit-1 Series). The Exhibit FIR(Ejhaar) was dated 25.11.2018 and in the Ejhaar complainant stated that on 28.10.2018 at about 19 hours he parked his bike bearing registration no.(Tem) TR01AQ 4409(Pulsar) 150 Twin Disk Abony DIK Blue DLK) bearing engine DHYCF62571 Chasis no. MD2A11CYOJCF 58677 near the road at Dhaleswar Nutan Palli and on the same day at about 20.44 hours it was found missing. That FIR was registered at East Agartala P.S. and after investigation final report was submitted by I.O. at East Agartala P.S. Dated 25.04.2019. The certified copy of the final report is also exhibited and from the final report we find that the motor cycle (bike) was stolen of 28.10.2018 and there was a registration number(Tem)TR01 AQ 4409. Complainant also exhibited copy of the temporary registration certificate and from temporary certificate we find that the registration was valid for 30 days w.e.f. 08.10.2018 and the incident of theft was occurred on 28.10.2018 that means  the incident of theft was occurred within the period of one month. And at that time the motor bike had valid temporary registration.
    
7.        We have considered the arguments of both sides but we find much force in the submission of Mr. T.K. Deb. We also found that at the time of incident of theft there was insurance policy and for that purpose premium was also paid. On appreciation of the entire evidence adduced by the parties we are in the opinion that the refusal of the claim of the claimant by the O.Ps amounts to deficiency of service. We  also hold that complainant is entitled to get the value of the bike Rs.80,673/- and also entitled to get Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and sufferings. Further complainant is entitled to get litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- that means the complainant is entitled to get in total Rs.1,10,673/-(Rs.80,673/- +20,000/- + 10,000/-). Both the points are decided accordingly.

8.        Hence it is ordered that O.Ps shall pay Rs.1,10,673/- to the complainant within 2 months from the date of this judgment. If fails, it will carry interest @ of Rs.9% P.A. until realization in full. Both the O.Ps are liable jointly and severally. Supply copy of this judgment to both the parties free of costs.                 
                

Announced.

SRI R. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

Dr (SMT) B. PAL
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.
    

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.