The Complainant has filed this complaint against both the O.P’s under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and praying for following Order / Relief :-
- Direction against the O.P. No. 1 & 2 to pay Rs. 4,68,046/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Forty Six) Only as the claim amount of the Complainant.
- Direction against the O.P. No. 1 & 2 to pay damages of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) Only for agony, shock and suffering sustained by the Complainant.
- Interest pendentelite.
- Cost of the case.
Total value of claim is of Rs. 5,18,046/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighteen Thousand Forty Six Only).
The case of the Complainant in brief is that, the Complainant is a peace loving citizen of India/ O.P. No. 2 is a non-banking finance company engaged for business of providing loan for commercial motor vehicle insurance, for running their business the O.P. No. 2 establish its branches in various places of the country/ the O.P’s are also engaged for the business of motor vehicle insurance, they insured the vehicle in case of damages, theft etc/ the O.P. No. 2 & 3 is one of the Branch of the O.P. No. 1 and run its business throughout the North Bengal area within the State of West Bengal/ in the year 2017 the Complainant decided to purchases Second Hand Four Wheeler Car in brand name and style Bolero Pick Up, The Complainant visited the O.P. No. 3 for purchasing the vehicle / after obtained loan from the O.P. No. 3. That the Complainant purchased Four Wheeler Car namely Bolero Pick Up manufactured by Mahindra & Mahindra Vide Engine No. GHD1J77503 & Chasis No. MA1ZN2GHKD1J69908 from Pradip Ranjan Das / after transfer of the ownership on 10.08.2018 the Office of the R.T.O. Jalpaiguri issued a Registration Certificate in favour of the Complainant and allotted Registration No. WB73C9607/ after purchasing the aforesaid vehicle the Complainant obtained Insurance Policy being Policy No. 10003/ 31/19/522766 for his vehicle from the O.P. No. 2/ The Complainant used to drive his car without any obstruction, problems from any corner / on 06.07.2019 the Complainant noticed that his vehicle was stolen away by some unknown miscreants / the Complainant lodged a written complaint with the police of Mayanaguri P.S. who started Mayanaguri P.S. Case No. 216/2019 on 08.07.2019 under Section 379 of I P C/ The Complainant also informed the O.P’s. about the matter and raised his claim by dialing Toll Free Number as per their guideline / on 02.08.2019 the O.P. No. 1 issued a letter to the Complainant being no. SGIC/CLM/20/037373 Dt. 02.08.2019 and requested to furnish some papers for the claim of the Complainant / after getting the letter the Complainant handed over all the documents to the officer of the O.P’s. as per the letter dt. 02.08.2019 / on 25.09.2019 the Investigation Officer of the Mayanaguri P.S.Case No. 216/2019 dt. 08.07.2019 received an email from the Dhaligaon, Assam and came to know that vehicle of the Complainant was seized by the Dhaligaon Police Station, Assam in connection with Dhaligaon P.S. Case No. 175/2019 under Section 379/34 I P C read with Section 40/41 of Assam Forest Regulation Act / after getting email the Investigation Officer of Mayanaguri P.S. Case No. 216/2019 dt. 08.07.2019 filed an application before the Ld. C.J.M. Jalpaiguri prayed for re-seized the vehicle and prayer was allowed by Ld. C.J.M. on 24.10.2019 / on 15/11/2019 the I.O. of the case being No. Mayanaguri P.S. Case No. 216/ 2019 dt. 08.07.2019 filed an application before the Ld. ACJM, Chirange Assam for custody of the Vehicle being Registration No. WB73C9607 & prayer was allowed/ the I.O. took the custody of the vehicle by submitting Zimmananaa and on 26.11.2019. the Complainnt filed an application before the Ld. CJM, Jalpaiguri for release of the Vehicle and prayer was allowed on 30.11.2019/ that the Complainant after getting the vehicle noticed that the vehicle was not in road worthy condition due to damage of some parts of the vehicle and the parts are required to be replaced with new one for return back the vehicle/ the Complainant informed the matter to the O.P. No. 2 and as per their advise the Complainant took price of the new parts of the vehicle amounting to Rs. 4,68,046/- ( Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Eighty Thousand Forty Six) Only out of which Complainant get bill amount to Rs. 1,35,876/- ( Rupees One Lakh Thirty Five Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Six Only)/ after getting cost of parts the Complainant immediately inform the O.P. No. 2 who informed the Complainant that one of their officer will visit his house for enquiry of the matter / officer of the O.P. No. 2 had visited the house of the Complainant, took some photographs of the vehicle / on the said occasion the Complainant informed the officer of the O.P. that for replacing the parts of the vehicle it will cost a sum of Rs. 4,68,046/- ( Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Eighty Thousand Forty Six) Only and submitted the quotation as per the direction of the Officer of the O.P.
The Police of Maynaguri PS filed charge sheet before the Ld CJM Jalpaiguri on 31.12.2019 being Charge sheet No. 383/19 dated 31.12.2019 where the I/O stated that he recovered the vehicle of the Complainant by filing Zimmanama at Dhaligaon PS Assam/ on 24.01.2020 the O.P. No. 1 issued a letter being No. SGIC/CLM/2018-2019, requested the Complainant to handover the documents namely recovery memo & vehicle release order for disbursement of the claim. The further case of the complainant is that after receiving the notice the complainant issued a letter on 02.03.2020 to the O.P. No. 1 and stated that the Police Authority of Dhaligaon Assam did not provide any recovery memo in connection with the vehicle, that letter was received on 05.03.2020/ on 04.02.2020 the O.P. No. 1 issued another letter being no. SJIC/CLM/ 2018-2019 dated 12.02.2020 and requested to handover the recovery memo. The further case is that on 16.03.2020 the Complainant sent legal notice to the O.P. 1 through his Advocate by registered post with A.D., requesting the O.P. No. 1 for disbursing his claim. But inspite of receiving the notice the O.P. No. 1 took no initiative / getting no response from the O.Ps the Complainant again issued a notice through his Ld. Advocate on 12.02.2020 requesting the O.P. No. 1 for disbursement of the claim but of no result/ on 06.01.2021 the Complainant contacted one of the officers of the O.P No. 1 to enquire about his claim who replied that the Claim was closed by the O.P. No. 1/ the complainant on 06.01.2021 verified through online mode in the official website of the O.Ps and came to know that his claim was closed by the O.P on 11.08.2020 without assigning any reason. The further case is that the O.P did not proceed for the claim of the Complainant inspite of inspection of the vehicle and for not settlement of the claim the complainant was suffering huge loss though the policy was effective from 19.12.2018 to 18.12.2019 and the complainant lost his vehicle on 06.07.2019 i.e within the policy period the complainant raised his claim. Further case is that the O.P. No. 1 without settling the claim of the complainant started demanding the recovery memo knowing fully well that no recovery memo was supplied by the Police of Dhaligaon P.S, Assam as well as the Police of Maynaguri P.S. and the said act is nothing but the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs/ The cause of action of the case arose on 11.08.2020 when the O.P. No. 1 did not settle the claim of the complainant and without assigning any reason stated that the claim of the complainant as “No Claim”.
Notice was issued from this Commission and on receipt of notice the O.P’s. have appears through Ld. Advocate, filed Written Version and denied all the material allegations of the Complainant. They have stated that, the Complainant with a view to extort huge amount of Compensation has filed this case on some false allegation. The O.P’s have also stated that, the instant case is not maintainable either under law or fact, there was no cause of action to file this case and the contents of Para No. 5 to 10 of the plaint are matter of facts along with Para No. 12, 14 to 20, 24 to 29 and the Complainant is bound to prove the same. The O.P’s. have denied all the other para of the plaint as the same are false. They have also stated that the Shriram General Insurance Company was not the insurer of the said vehicle at the point of time of alleged theft and there was no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P’s. in respect of the alleged claim of the Complainant. They also stated that the amount claimed by the Complainant has been baseless, malafide, incorrect, wrong, excessive and denied by the O.P’s. and the Complainant is not entitled. By filing the Written Version the O.P’s. have prays for dismissal of this case.
Having heard, the Ld. Advocate of both the side and on perusal of the plaint, Written Version, evidence, documents filed by the parties the following points are taken to be decided by this Commission.
Points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is a consumer?
- Whether the case is maintainable under the C.P. Act 2019?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. as alleged by the Complainant?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for as per the prayer of his Complaint?
Decision with Reasons
All the points are taken up together for discussion to avoid unnecessary repetition and for sake of convenience and brevity of this case.
To prove the case the parties were given opportunity to produce their evidence. Ld. Advocate of the Complainant has filed Written Deposition of the Complainant in the form of an Affidavit. The Complainant has also filed some documents by a firisti including the F. I. R., Charge Sheet, Insurance Policy Document, Bill for purchasing spare parts of the vehicle (Annexure-O), Legal Demand Notice (Annexure-T). By filing Written Notice of arguments and at the time of hearing of argument Ld. Advocate of the Complainant submits that, the Complainant has been able to prove the case against the O.P’s. and the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for. He further argued that, the Complainant immediately getting information of theft of the vehicle he lodge F I R with Maynaguri P.S. on 08.07.2019 being Maynaguri P.S. Case No. 216/19 dated 08.07.2019. He further argued that, the matter was duly reported with the O.P’s. through their Toll Free number and by virtue of that claim the O. P. No. 1 sent notice to the Complainant on 02.08.2019 being in No. SGIC/CLM/20/037373 dated 02.08.2019 requested to furnish some papers and the Complainant handed over the required documents in the office of the O.P’s. He further argued that, on several occasions the Complainant requested the O.P’s. for settlement of claim but of no result and that’s why the Complainant sent Legal Demand Notice through his Ld. Advocate to the O.P’s but despite receiving notice they made no reply subsequently came to know that, the claim of the Complainant was closed by the O.P’s on 11.08.2020 without assigning any reasons and for the said acts of the O.P’s. the Complainant has suffered a lot which is nothing but the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P’s. as well as unfair trade practice.
Ld. Advocate of the O.P’s. have also filed Written Notice of Argument and during oral argument he submits that, the Complainant has no cause of action to file this case against the O.P’s. and as the vehicle has already been recovered question of insurance claim does not arise. He further argued that, the Complainant did not provide the Recovery Memo to the O.P’s. though several reminder letter was issued to the Complainant by the O.P’s. and as the Complainant did not comply with the Rules and Regulation of the Company the claim of the Complainant was not settled. He further argued that, the Shriram General Insurance Company was not the insurer of
the vehicle at the time of alleged theft. He also argued that, the vehicle was firstly seized by the Police of Dhaligaon Police Station which was against seized by the Police of Maynaguri P.S. and brought the vehicle from Assam to Maynaguri which was released from Maynaguri P.S. as per order of the Ld. CJM, Jalpaiguri and whole the transit from Assam to Maynaguri the vehicle move smoothly and the vehicle was in running or road worthy condition and no damage was happened in respect of the vehicle. It is further argument of the O.P’s. that, the Complainant did not produce any documents in support of his alleged purchasing of vehicle parts amounting to Rs.4,68,046/- ( Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Forty Six Only) and that’s why the Complainant has failed to prove its case against the O.P’s.
Having heard, the Ld. Advocate of both the parties and on perusal of the entire record it is admitted fact that the Complainant is owner of the vehicle in question. It is not denied by the O.P’s. that, the Complainant lodge any F I R with the Police of Maynaguri Police Station on 08.07.2021 being P.S. Case No. 216/19 it is also admitted fact that, the Complainant raised a claim with the O.P’s. through the Toll Free Number. It is also admitted fact by both the parties that, the said vehicle of the Complainant was recovered by the Police of Dhaligaon, Assam during NAKA Checking and after getting information the Police of Maynaguri P.S. re-seized the vehicle and the same was released by the order of Ld. CJM, Jalpaiguri.
The O.P’s in their Written Version as well as in their Written Notes of Argument claims that, on the date of the alleged theft of the vehicle the O.P. No. 1 was not the insurer of that vehicle. But from the Annexure-D of the Complainant it reveals that, the Complainant has filed the policy document which clearly reflects that, the Complainant him-self was the owner of the vehicle for which he purchased Commercial vehicle package policy and the said policy was valid from 19.12.2018 to midnight of 18.12.2019 and within the said effective policy period the incident of theft of the vehicle was committed on 06.07.2019.
It is also the claim of the O.P’s that, the Complainant did not show any documents in support of his alleged purchasing of vehicle parts amounting to Rs. 4,68,046/- ( Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Forty Six) Only. But from the
careful scrutiny of the record it reveals that the Complainant has filed photo copy of Bill dated 05.01.2020 & 15.01.2020 which are marked as Annexure O & P respectively wherefrom it is proved that, the Complainant purchased vehicle parts amounting to Rs. 1,35,876/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Five Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Six) Only though the Complainant has failed to produce other Bills/Receipts for purchasing vehicle parts of the balance amount of Rs. 4,68,046/- ( Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Forty Six) Only - Rs. 1,35,876/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Five Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Six) Only. It is admitted fact by both the parties that, the claim of the Complainant was not accepted and no amount of money was given to the Complainant.
It is argument of the O.P’s. that, the claim of the Complainant was considered by the O.P’s. as No claim on the grounds of non-production of the Recovery Memo. But from the Written Notes of Argument as well as from the Written Version of the O.P’s. it is admitted fact that, the Complainant lodged FIR, Police of Dhaligaon, Assam Seized the vehicle during NAKA Checking and the Police of Maynaguri P.S. Submitted the Charge sheet. Moreover, it is settled principle of law that, the Insurance Company should not repudiate any claim for non submission of document which is beyond the control of the claimant and as per circular of the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA) it has been declared that, the Insurance Companies should not repudiate any claim of the claimant in a mechanical manner.
In Gurmel Singh- Versus – Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No 4071 of 2022 it was held that, “ While settling, the Insurance Company should not be too technical and ask for the document which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control….”. In the instant case “ Recovery Memo” as demanded by the O.P’s. was also beyond the control of the Complainant to produce.
In the case in hand the O.P’s. considered the claim of the Complainant as No claim but without informing the Complainant though the claim was raised within the effective policy period which is nothing but the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P’s.
Considering all, we are of the view that, the Complainant has been able to prove the case against the O.P’s. and he is entitled to get the price of purchasing vehicle parts amounting to Rs. 1,35,876/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Five Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Six) Only for which the Complainant has produced Bills.
Hence it is,
O R D E R E D
That the instant Consumer Case being in No. 30/2021 is hereby allowed on contest against the O.P’s. but in part. Both the O.P’s. are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,35,876/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Five Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Six) Only to the Complainant towards price of the vehicle parts. The O.P’s. are also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) to the Complainant for deficiency in service and for mental pain, agony suffered by the Complainant. The O.P’s. are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the Complainant as litigation cost. The O.P’s. are also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.
The O.P’s. are directed to pay the above amount within a period of 45 (Forty Five) days from this day failing which they will have to pay interest @ 9 % per annum till making payment of the entire amount.
Let a copy of this order be given to parties free of cost.
