West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/150/2014

Sri Bishnupada Ghosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

23 Jul 2015

ORDER

                                                           DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

 PRESENTS : Before Ld. President : Mr. Bibekananda Pramanik.

                                     Ld. Member   :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                     Ld. Member   :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

                                              

Complaint Case No.150/2014

                                                     

                                                       Sri Bishnupada Ghosh

                                                                                        ………Complainant.

Vs

                                                       The Reliance General Insurance Co.

                                                                                                     …………..OP/Ops.

 For the Complainant : Mr. Swapan Kr.Dasmal, Advocate.

 For the O.P.                : Mr. Abhishek Dubey & Mr. Somnath Guin, Advocate.

 

                                    Judgement delivered on: - 23/07/2015

                               

 

JUDGEMENT

 

             Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Presiding Member- The case of the complainants, in a nut shell is that the complainant purchased a new Motor Cycle (Bajaj Discover-1000C) from Mahadev Auto Sales (Bajaj) from Debra Bazar, P.O. & P.S.-Debra, Dist: Paschim Medinipur within the jurisdiction of the Ld Forum on or about 06/04/2013 under the finance of Bajaj Finance Ld. Valued Rs.53,313/- and thereafter the said vehicle was registered with the Motor vehicle Department at Paschim Medinipur bearing registration No.WB-34AD/9206 in the name of the complainant.

              The complainant states that one Kasinath Mondal the brother in law of the complainant with a view to go to Kolaghat taking the motorcycle from the complainant and after reaching Kolaghat the brother-in-law kept the motor cycle in the garage of one Dilip Maity S/o-Mrityanjoy Maity at Ashari Bazar under Debra P.S. on good faith.

               Thereafter on the next day when the complainant’s brother-in-law went to return back the

Contd……………P/2

 

-(2)-

said motor cycle Dilip Maity alongwith his employee Ashok Chakraborty denied the said fact of custody of the said motor cycle but after a while they admitted the fact and agreed to return the same by saying ‘come next’ day. But altemetlly they did not return back said motor cycle their after the complainant wife lodged a F.I.R. in the local Debra P.S. against Dilip Maity and Ashok Chakraborty accordingly on  04/10/2013  Debra P.S. started a case against Dilip Maity and Ashok Chakraborty  being Case No.222/2013 dated 04/10/2013 U/S-406/34 I.P.C., subsequently Debra police has submitted report against those accused persons  for criminal breach of trust.

             The complainant states that immediately after the incident the complainant informed the matter the Op-Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. The complainant states that he tired to settle the matter through his brother-in-law and the accused person, but no fruitful result, therafter as per the instruction of Op. No. b & c the complainant submitted insurance claim in respect of his loss/theft of his motor cycle vide claim No.2131120953.

              The complainant further states that the Op No. b by their letter dated 16/12/2013 pleased to repudiated the claim on the plea that there was delaying intimation in respect of the aforesaid incident which were after 31 days and 33 days respectively informing the loss/theft as alleged.

              That the complainant against that he to be never at fault. The complainant claims that he intimated the matter immediately to be concern authorities. The Op. No. b is trying to avoid payment on technical ground.

               The complainant argued that he is the bonafide customer to the Ops. No. a & c and the said Ops. have no right to repudiate the claim of the complainant.

                The complainant states that there is deficiency on the part of Ops. as there has never been on delay in intonating the matter.

                The complainant therefore pray before the Ld. Forum with a direction to effect payment and make good the loss sustained by the complainant to the time of Rs.53,313/- along with necessary charges.

                The Ops. contested the case by filing W/O statement challenging that the complainant has no reason to file the petition of complaint.

The Op-Reliance General Insurance Co. states that the complainant not maintenance in law and it is also barred by limitation the Ld. Lawyer for this OP. argued that the prayer of the complainant is improper illegal and ungust.

Para (5) of the Op-Reliance General Insurance Co. did not admitted fact and states that at the relevant time insured decline value (IDV) of the aforesaid vehicle of Rs.44,350/- (Forty four thousand three hundred fifty) only and the registration of the vehicle was on 30/04/2013 and the policy is only cover in case of that burglary and house  breaking.

The OP states that it is evident from F.I.R. the insured vehicle being No.WB-84AD9206

Contd……………P/3

 

-(3)-

(Bajaj discover-100CC) kept in one garage of one Dilip Maity and his employee denied and said that they did not return the motor cycle and thereafter Dilip Maity admit the incident by saying that he but he did not return the motor cycle for that the insured wife lodged a complaint to the Debra P.S. with allegation of criminal breach of trust. So from F.I.R. it is clear that the vehicle was untraced for dishonest act of Dilip Maity and his employee from the submission of Final Report the offence is breach of trust come U/S 406 and 34 I.P.C. and not 379 I.P.C. Op states that two wheeler package policy is covered U/S under theft, but the offence is committed U/S 406 I.P.C. So there is no liability of the OP to cover such risk. Moreover the Op states that the complainant lodged FIR after 33 days without satisfactory explanation for delay. In case of theft the insured should be informed to the P.S. immediately within 24 hours.

The Op states that the complainant did not intimated as regard the theft of the insured of Reliance General Insurance Co.  to the register authority as per mandatory provision of motor vehicles Act.

As per the policy condition and the Op-Reliance General Insurance Co. has no deficiency of service on this points of the Op-Reliance General Insurance Co.  rightly repudiated the claim through a letter dated 16/12/2013 as the complainant did not submit the necessary required document was asked by the OP. So, the claim made by the complainant is not at all tenable and liable to be dismissed.  

The OP No. (d)    submits that the contentions and submission made by the complainant in this present complaint are denied and disputed save and except what are matters of record.

The OP No.(d) states that the complainant approached this OP and requested for financial assistance for purchase of a two wheels (Bajaj Discover DTS-SI-ES). OP agreed to extend financial facility to the tune of Rs.50,568/-(Including financial charges of Rs.10,563) for 24 months.

The OP further states that at the time of execution of loan agreement the complainant has gone through and understood all the terms and condition of loan agreement.

That the OP also states that OP is dealing with only providing financial assistance and OP also submitted that as per clause 23 of the said loan agreement it is crystal clear that the complainant is responsible for insuring the vehicle in question.

The OP states that even after repeated request the complainant has not taken any steps to regularize the loan dues. Having no other way OP has send loan recall notice on 10/01/2014 but the complainant has not tried his level best to regularize the loan account. OP further states that as on 11/02/2015 the complainant is in due of Rs.14,168/- towards other overdue charges.

Further the OP wish to state that the complainant was in default with the OP Company on the said loan account. Here. The Hon’ble Supreme Court itself has laid down a law that a

Contd……………P/4

 

-(4)-

defaulter cannot be termed as a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act as such a defaulter cannot nomination a complaint alleging deficiency of service on the financer (OP). Thus the complainant has not approached this Honorable Forum with clear hands against this OP. So, this complaint deserves to be dismissed.

This OP further states and submit that vehicle in question is insured with Op-Reliance General Insurance Co. and the OP is only financer. This OP states that the OP is unnecessary party and there is no specific prayer against the OP.

The Ld. Advocate for the Ops. argued that it is clearly evident that there is no deficiency of service on the point of the Ops.

      

          Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed:

          1) Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?

          2) Whether there is deficiency of service ?

          3) Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for?

          4) Whether it is barred by limitation or not?

                                               

Decision with reasons

 

 Issue No. 1 to 3.

All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the disputes.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the case is maintainable under the statutory provision of consumer Protection Act.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant also argued that the complainant intimated the matter immediately to the concern authority.  It is for want of settlement the complainant could not lodge his formal claim.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant is argued that the complainant is a bona fide customer of the Ops no. (a) to (c).  The Ops have no right to repudiate the claim of the complainant on flimsy ground and there has never been any delay not to speak of any inordinate delay in intimate delay the matter and/or preferring the loss and the same amounts to deficiency in service.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant argued the immediately after the said incident the complainant informed the matter to OP only No.(c) verbally and also on 08/09/2013.  The complainant tried to settle the matter but no fruitful results and thereafter the instruction of the OP (b) and (c) the complainant submitted insurance claim in respect of his loss theft of the complainant

Contd……………P/5

 

 

-(5)-

is aforesaid motor cycle to the OP. (b) on 7/10/2013 for effecting payment of claim amount vide settlement claim No.2131120953.

The Ld. Advocates for the Ops. made their reply that there is strong evidence to establish that the case is not maintainable in this Forum.

Ld. Advocate for the Ops. further argued that there is strong evidence to establish that there is no deficiency of service against the Ops.  As the complainant did not submit the necessary required documents as asked by the OP.  The Reliance General Insurance Co. repudiate the claim of the complainant by a letter dated 16/12/2013 so there is no deficiency of service from the side of the OP-Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. as the complainant violated the terms and condition of the policy.  The letter dated 16/12/2013 of the Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. where it is clearly written that after 33 days of the theft the complainant intimated the police authority breaching the condition No.1 of the policy. Condition No.1 of the policy clearly says that notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim.  So here the claim of the complaint stands repudiated for breach of condition 1 of the Motor vehicle Insurance Policy.  It is evident that Annexure A, B, C, D & E, we have carefully considered.  Accordingly to Annexure E the two wheeler package policy is covered  under theft but the offence is committed U/S 406 I.P.C being breach of trust and not theft.  So there is no liability of the Ops to cover such risk.  The complainant did not intimated as regard the theft of the insured of reliance Insurance Co. Ltd. To the register authority as per mandatory provision as per Motor Vehicles act.

We have carefully considered the case of both parties including those documentary evidence.

In view of the facts and circumstance, we do not find any scope to accept the plea of the complainant.  As a result, it is held that there is no scope to file this care in this form.  Therefore, the prayer made by the complainant cannot be granted in this case.

                                Hence, it is,

                                                    ORDERED

                                                                               that the complaint case  be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.

Dic. & Corrected by me

               Sd/-                                          Sd/-                                               Sd/-

            Member                                  Member                                          President                                                

                                                                                                             District Forum

                                                                                                          Paschim Medinipur.