DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK : (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 88 of 2023.
Date of hearing : 17.10.2023.
Date of order : 14.11.2023.
Dated the 14th day of November 2023.
Tusharkanta Mohapatra, S/o:-Srikanta Mohapatra,
At:-Randia (Upper Hat), Po:- Randia Hat,
P.S:- Bhadrak (R), Dist:-Bhadrak, Pin-756113.
………….. Complainant.
-:Versus:-
- The Regional Manager, Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Company Limited, Dare House No.2,
NSC Base Road, Chennai-600001.
- The Branch Manager, Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Company Limited, At:-Rajghat Chhak,
Po/Dist:-Bhadrak, Pin-756100.
.…………Opposite parties.
P R E S E N T S.
1. Sri Shiba Prasad Mohanty, President,
2. Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.
Counsels appeared for the parties.
For the Complainant : Sri C.K. Swain, Advocate & Associates.
For the Opp. Parties : Sri Amarendra Kumar Panda, Advocate.
J U D G M E N T.
SRI SHIBA PRASAD MOHANTY, PRESIDENT.
In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Fact of the case is that, the complainant is the registered owner of Pulsar Motorcycle bearing Regd. No.OD-02-BQ-0743 (Pulsar 220DT SIF) was insured under O.P.No.2 vide Policy No.3397/02081252/000/00 & the policy was valid till Midnight 22.01.2026. Due to some urgent need of money complainant had sold the aforesaid Pulsar Motorcycle to one Sukanta Samal, S/o:- Kartik Samal of village Bhutia, Po:- Manjuri, PS:-Bhandaripokhari, District Bhadrak vide affidavit dated 13.10.2015 but due to some official difficulties the transfer of ownership of aforesaid Motorcycle is still pending. The vehicle was stolen from the house of Sukanta Samal in the midnight of 25.10.2022. Pertaining to the above facts & circumstances Sukanta Samal reported the matter before I.I.C. Bhandaripokhari & after receiving the written complaint, registered the case as P.S. Case No.0366, dtd.26.10.2022 & directed ASI Sri S. Dhal to take up investigation which subsequently turned into G.R. Case No.2802/2022. The Investigation Officer Sri S. Dhal submitted his Final Report (… hence I returned the case as FRT NO CLUE…) & the learned SDJM accepted & allowed the final report on 11.02.2023. Complainant served the legal notice on dtd.03.03.2023 to settle the insurance claim & the O.Ps have duly received the notice but failed to needful. Complainant requested several times before O.Ps to settle the insurance claim but the O.Ps did not listen the complainant. Complainant has prayed to direct the O.Ps to settle the insurance claim along with interest @ 19% per annum to till the date of realization of insurance claim & Rs.20,000/- to be paid by O.Ps to the complainant for deficiency in service & mental agony & Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the litigation charges.
O.Ps submit that, the complainant Tusarkanta Mohapatra had taken a Motor Two Wheelers Policy Bundled No.3397/02081252/000/00 in connection to a new bike having model of Pulsar 220 Sports having Engine No. DKXCLG40038 & Chassis No.MD2A13EX3LCG395580 manufactured by Bajaj in the year 2020 covering risk of own damage of said vehicle declaring the insured value of Rs.1,20,263/- from the O.P.No.2 Insurance Company for the period from 12.35 hrs on 23.01.2021 to midnight of 22.01.2022 & for third party from 12.35 hrs on 23.01.2021 to midnight of 22.01.2026 & Compulsory Personal Accident of owner driver from 12.35 hrs on 23.01.2021 to midnight of 22.01.2022 with terms & conditions. Under the aforesaid policy the O.P.2 had undertaken to indemnify the insured against loss or damage to the vehicle insured. The aforesaid issued motor two wheelers policy bundled policy bearing No.3397/02081252/000/000 for the period of OD (Own Damage) from 12.35 hrs on 23.01.2021 to midnight on 22.01.2022 requires upon happening of any event which may give rise to any claim under the policy written notice with full particulars must be given immediately & in case of theft the insured immediate notice to the police & co-operate with company in securing conviction of the offender & lodge a claim & shall give information & assistance as the company shall require. There cannot be any scope for doubt that the obligation shall have to be complied necessarily by the insured & satisfactory to the company. Complainant has not given written notice about the theft of the vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-02-BQ-074 (Pulsar-220 DT SIF) in the midnight of 25.10.2022 to the insurer/O.P.1. There was no intimation of theft & claim thereof was put-forth by the complainant for the alleged theft of the vehicle either with the O.P.1 or 2. There is no deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps to the complainant in settlement of his claim & delay in settlement of his claim does not arise.
Having heard the rival contention, this commission frames these following issues for fair and just adjudication of the case.
ISSUES.
- Whether the case vehicle has been stolen on the date, time and place mentioned by the complainant?
- Whether the case vehicle was duly insured at the OPs by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant has intimated about the theft to the OPs?
- Whether these OPs have committed deficiency in service?
- What relief the complainant is entitled to get?
ISSUE No.1.
It is abundantly clear from the GR Case records that the case vehicle has been stolen. The informant Sukanta Samal specifically says in the FIR that the case vehicle which stands in name of his brother –in-law(SADHU) had been stolen from the house of the informant on 25/10/2022 night. From the material available in the record, it seems these OPs have no objection to the fact that the case vehicle has been stolen. So, issue No.1 is answered in favour of the complainant.
The Insurance Certificate of the case vehicle clearly says that the case vehicle has been duly insured up to 22/01/2026 for Third Party and up to 22/01/2022 for own damage. An Own Damage insurance covers the insured vehicle against damages, loss, theft etc. A comprehensive plan on the other hand is a combination of Own Damage and Third Party Liabilities. But in this instant case, the vehicle was not insured for own damage on the date of the theft i.e. 25/10/2022. The own damage insurance covers only up to 22/01/2022. However very strangely, these OPs have not raised this objection. It appears from the evidence that they admit the same as they do not raise the point nor they deny the claim of the complainant specifically. The sole contention of these OPs is that the complainant has not informed them about the theft debarring them from assessment of the claim as per policy terms and conditions. They stress on the point that the case vehicle was under the control and possession of the informant of the GR Case registered for theft of the case vehicle and that the present complainant has not suffered any loss, the claim is not maintainable. The rights and liabilities of the parties are governed by the terms and conditions of contract of insurance. The complainant has not duly insured the case vehicle to claim against the theft of the vehicle. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to get any claim against the theft of the vehicle. Thus Issue No.2 is answered against the complainant.
The complainant has informed the OPs by registered post on 31/03/2023 in their correct address. Further, there was stopping for these OPs to call for the complainant nd settle the claim even after getting summon of this present complaint from this Commission ex-curia. So, this commission finds it difficult to persuade it self that as the matter of theft of the case vehicle was not informed to these OPs for which they could not process or settle the claim. So, Issue No.3 is answered in favour of the Complainant.
Lastly, Issue No.4 & 5 are taken together into consideration. There is no material in evidence that these OPs have communicated with the complainant in any manner. Rather they have preferred to languish over the matter even after receipt of registered letter with copy of the police investigation papers. They could have very easily informed the complainant that as he has not taken the Own Damage policy beyond 22/01/2022 so he was not entitled to get any claim for theft of the vehicle. Because of the negligence and deficiency of service, unnecessarily the matter prolonged up to this present litigation and the complainant has to go through mental agony and suffering. For which the complainant needs to be compensated by these OPs. Thus, Issue No.4 & 5 are answered in favour of the complainant and against these OPs.
O R D E R.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. These OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and suffering which the complainant has suffered for the negligence & deficiency in service of these OPs and another Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order and in the event these OPs fail to pay the same to the complainant in time then they shall pay the amount with 6% interest till the date of actual payment is made.
This order is pronounced in the open Court on this the 14th day of November 2023 under my hand and seal of the Commission.
