THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE No. CC- 59 of 2019

 

Mr. Sanjib Gohai,

S/O- Lt. Anu Gohai,

Bidyasagar, Jogendra Nagar,

P.O. College Tilla, P.S. East Agartala,

West Tripura, 799004. ...….................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

The Senior Manager,

National Insurance company Ltd.,

Agartala Divisional Office, 42, Akhaura Road,

Agartala, West Tripura, 799001.  ....................Opposite Party.

 

 

 

     __________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 Utpal Das,

  Smt. Kanta Debbarma 

  Learned Advocates.

    

For the O.P.  : Sri Rajib Saha,

  Learned Advocate.

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  20.09.2021

 

 

J U D G M E N T

The Complainant's case in short is that the  complainant has taken a Motor Insurance Package Policy for his motor cycle bearing registration no- TR 01 AE 6485, Bajaj Pulsar (Engine No- DKYCJ01915 and chasis no MD2A13EY6JCK02207) from the O.P. and it was sum assured Rs. 92,766/- vide policy no- 20300031176260005371, covering risk from 14.02.2018 to 13.02.2019. On 11.06.2018 at about 20.00 hours complainant parked his motor cycle in front of the gate of Mr. Manik Dey of East Shibnagar, College Road, to meet his friend. After meeting his friend  when he returned from the house of his friend he found his motor cycle was missing. That the incident was also reported to the insurer on 12.03.2018 and East Agartala P.S. Also registered case vide no. P.S. Case No.2018/EAG/145 dated 03.08.2018 U/S 379 IPC. Complainant also fulfilled all the formalities as required by the O.P. insurer  and submitted both the keys  to the office of the O.P. for settlement of the theft claim. But the O.P. Insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 06.03.2019. Police also submitted Final report but the O.P. without going through the report repudiated the claim of the complainant. Complainant also served a legal demand notice dated 29.07.2019 to the O.P. for settlement of the claim. O.P. did not respond. It is stated by the complainant that the O.P. did not render proper service and there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. and the complainant suffered mentally. Thus, he filed this case against the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.1,82,768/-.

 

2. On the other hand O.P. appeared and filed their written statement stating that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable. O.P. denied all the allegations made by the complainant. It is stated by the O.P. that the complaint is barred by the principle of waiver, estoppel and acquiesces and liable to be dismissed with cost as the complainant suppressed some material facts. It is stated by the O.P. that the final report submitted by the investigating officer of police authority reveals that the motor cycle was parked by the complainant without proper locking. It is stated by the O.P. that the complainant has reported the alleged incident of theft of his motor cycle on 03.08.2018 for the first time after almost 2 months of the incident. There is no happening of such theft and hence the complainant could not lodge the FIR or intimate the incident to the police authority  just immediately after the alleged incident. It is also stated by the O.P. that the police investigating authority in the final report mentioned that the complainant marked the motor cycle without proper lock which reveals negligence on the part of the complainant and hence insurance company is not liable to indemnify the loss incurred by the complainant. The O.P. was never negligent towards the claim of the complainant and has never harassed the complainant and rightfully repudiated the claim of the complainant for not following the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In reply to the demand notice dated 29.07.2019 issued by the complainant it is stated by the O.P. that they have replied to the letter dated 06.08.2019 mentioning the reason for repudiation of the insurance claim and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.   

 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

Complainant submitted examination in chief on affidavit and he was cross examined by the O.P.  He also produced 10 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 Joydeep Ghosh, Branch Assistant Manager, Insurance company and 2 documents by firisti namely Standard Form for Two Wheeler Package Policy containing the terms and conditions of the policy and FIR, Ejahar with the East Agartala P.S. Case no. 145 of 2018, dated 03.02.2018. O.P. could not be cross examined as they failed to appear before this court.

 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED: - 

(ii) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.?

  (iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/ relief as prayed for?

 

5. ARGUMENTS: - 

We heard argument of both sides and both sides submitted their written argument also. In the written argument learned counsel of the complainant submitted that the motor cycle  had insurance coverage of the risk and the sum insured for Rs.92,0766/- vide policy no- 20300031176260005371 covering the risk from 14.03.2018 to 13.02.2019. Within this risk period the bike was stolen on11.06.2018 at about 20.00 hrs  while the complainant parked the motor cycle with proper lock along with steering lock in front of the gate of Manik Dey, of East Shibnagar, college Road to meet his friend Mr. Dilujoy Reang. The incident of theft was reported to the insurer on 12.06.2018 but the O.P. repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant has violated the insurance policy condition and there was gross negligence  on the part of the complainant.  Learned Counsel of the complainant further submitted that from the catina of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court directing the Insurance Company to compensate the loss sustained by the insured in such a case. Learned counsel Mr. Utpal Das further submitted that the complainant is entitled to get the policy amount as well as the compensation for deficiency of service, mental agony, harassment as well litigation cost.

 

On the other hand the counsel of the O.P. in his written argument stated that there was delay about 2 months for lodging the FIR in respect of the theft and after investigation police submitted final report and in the final report it is mentioned that the motor cycle was parked near the road side without proper lock and care. It is further argued that as per terms of policy the claimant is not entitled to get any compensation as complainant did not take care of his motor cycle while he parked the cycle at the place of occurrence. Learned Counsel of the O.P. submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as complainant failed to prove his complaint.         

     

 

 

 

6. DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:-

                 Both the points are taken up together for convenience. We have meticulously gone through the pleadings of the parties  evidences as well as documents adduced by both the parties. From the pleadings, we find that there is no dispute about theft of the motor cycle. The question was that the complainant did not inform the incident of theft in time before the police station. We also find that the O.P. repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant did not take proper care of his motor cycle after proper locking. In this regard we have to discuss the evidences adduced by the complainant. In the complaint petition at para 4 it is stated that on 11.06.2018 at about 20.00 hrs complainant parked his motor cycle bearing registration no- TR 01 AE 6485 with proper lock along with steering lock in front of the gate of Mr. Manik Dey of East Shibnagar, College Road to meet his friend Mr. Dilujoy Reang. After meeting his friend when he returned from the rented house of his friend he found that the motor cycle is not there as some unknown miscreants has stolen his motor cycle. From the Ejehaar which is exhibited as Exhibit- 1 Series we found that the complainant in his Ejehaar also stated that his motor cycle was locked properly where it was parked. From the claim intimation letter (Exhibit-1 Series) we find that the complainant submitted his claim before the authority on 12th June, 2018 and in the letter the date and time of incident was mentioned as on 11.06.2018, place of incident is mentioned as College Tilla, Shibnagar Road. From another document i.e., the letter dated 14.03.2019 written by the complainant to Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Agartala, West Tripura, we find that the complainant disagreed with the point that without proper locking the motor cycle was parked. In the said letter complainant reported that he locked his motor cycle during parking with steering lock as per company guide line with company manufactured key and this key was already handed over to the insurance company at the time of submitting claim letter. O.P. failed to submit the final report submitted by the policy after investigation. So, the stand taken by the O.P. relying upon the final report is not sustainable.

 

On appreciation of the above evidences adduced by the complainant we are in the opinion that the complainant has been able to prove that there was no negligence or carelessness on the part of the complainant while he parked the motor cycle infront of the house of Manik Dey at Shibnagar College Road. The delay in lodging the FIR does not mean that the complainant has no right  to make his claim as there is valid policy covering risk of the motor cycle.

 

7. In our considered view the complainant has been able to prove his complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. complainant is thus entitled to get the insurance claim amounting to Rs.92,766/-. Complainant is also entitled to get compensation for deficiency of service as well as mental agony and harassment as a lumpsum of Rs.20,000/- and also litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. In total complainant is entitled to get Rs. 1,17,766/-.

Hence, the complaint of the complainant is allowed partly. We direct the O.P. to pay Rs.1,17,766/-(insurance claim,  compensation and litigation cost) to the complainant within 2(two) months from the date of this judgment, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.

Supply a certified copy of the 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.