DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:

                                                -oo0oo-

C.D.CASE NO. 209/ 2009

Mamata Nayak, W/o Narayan Nayak,

Aged about 32 years, resident of Jagamara,

Plot No.936, PO/PS: Khandagiri,

Bhubaneswar, Dist : Khurda

                                                                             ….     Complainant 

          -Vrs.-

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

(Represented through its Senior Divisional Manager),

Divisional Office No.I, Plot No.94, Janpath, Unit – III,

Kharvel Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Dist : Khurda

                                                                             …      Opp. Party

For the complainant      Sri  R.K.Pattnaik & K.C.Prusty  (Adv.)

For the O.P                    Mr.Dev Das (Adv.)

DATE OF FILING         :         28/04/2009

DATE OF ORDER        :         10/08/2023

ORDER

K.C.RATH, PRESIDENT

1.       This is an application U/s 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986.

2.       The complainant’s case in brief is that,  the complainant namely, Mamata Nayak ,  was the registered owner of the TATA Tipper vehicle  bearing registration number OR-09-9187. The said vehicle  was duly insured with the OP and the insurance was in force with effect from 19/9/2006 to 18/9/2007.  It is alleged by the complainant that, on  22/7/2007,   the vehicle was parked near Kabar khana market, within the jurisdiction of the Paradeep Police Station and at night it  was stolen. On the next morning, the brother-in-law  of the complainant,  who was residing at Paradeep and looking after the tipper, found that the tipper was not there where it was parked.  He searched hither  & thither but could not be able to trace it. So, on 24/07/2007, the brother in-law of the complainant logged FIR at Paradeep Police station. The case was duly registered and investigation was taken up.  On 26/07/2007, the complainant intimated to the OP that the insured vehicle was stolen. The police after investigation, submitted final form stating therein that, the fact was true but there was no clue.  The complainant lodged claim before the OP, who rejected the claim on various grounds.  Hence this complaint.

3.       On the other hand,  the  OP  filed written version  challenging  the maintainability of the case. Although the OP admitted the factum of insurance but it repudiated the claim of the complainant on the following grounds.

1. The statement  of the complainant is purely contradictory in  nature to that of FIR story on the score that the driver was on leave since 20.7.2007 and the vehicle was parked since then till 22.7.2007.i.e. on the date of theft.
2. There was delay in lodging report.
3. The name of the driver was Sudhir Kumar Rout but the complainant and its care-taker disclosed his name as Sisir Kumar Rout.
4. The original registration book issued by RTO, Keonjhar, has been submitted with RTO, Chandikhole and on demand, obtained a duplicate registration book from RTO, this caste heavy doubt on the conduct of the complainant. No endorsement of theft has been made in the original registration book.
5. The name and address of the helper who was eye-witness, was not disclosed.

6. The owner had not taken reasonable steps to safeguard the property insured.  

On the basis of aforesaid pleadings,  it is contended by the OP that, the complaint is not maintainable and as such it is liable to be dismissed.

4        Perused the materials on record.  Annexure – 1 clearly indicates that, the complainant namely Mamata Nayak insured the  Tata tipper vehicle with the New India Assurance  Company Ltd. Annexure -1 further reveals that, the insurance was  in force from 19/09/2006 to mid-night of 18/09/2007. It further reveals that the insured value of the said vehicle was Rs.7,60,000/-. The photocopy of the police papers vide Annexure -2 indicates that, on 24/07/2007, FIR was lodged by the brother-in-law of the complainant namely, Sukanta Nayak at Paradeep police station.  Annexure -12 indicates that the police submitted final form  stating therein that the fact true but no clue. All these materials taken together clearly establish that,  the vehicle belonging to the complainant was insured with the OP and it was stolen on 22/07/2007. The factum of theft was also intimated to the OP within the reasonable time. The plea of the OP to the effect that, the complainant had not taken  reasonable step to  safeguard the property insured,  is not all that  strong a point. It is not normally excepted that,  the owner of a single truck would make a garage to keep  it  in safe custody. Nor, is it excepted that, he will keep a night watchman to keep watch over the truck so parked in the road side.  Lakhs  of trucks and other vehicles are being parked in the road side at night throughout the country and it is needless to say that, no watchman  has been appointed to keep watch  over those vehicles parked in the road side. This fact is also within the knowledge of the OP. We should not except 100% sincerity from the insured after the mishap occurred.  It is unfortunate that the insured vehicle was stolen but for that the total blame cannot be  put on the insured.    The discrepancy with regard to the name of the driver, inability to tell  the name of the helper and some minor discrepancies in the  narration of the incident are not all that material to reject the claim of the insured. The insured vehicle was stolen and the fact was intimated to the OP. The necessary papers and other articles were submitted to the OP. These  are sufficient to allow the claim of the complainant. Therefore, it appears that the  complaint bears merit. Hence   it is ordered.

ORDER

The complaint is  allowed  on contest against the OP.  The OP is     directed to pay the  insured value of the vehicle i.e. Rs.7,60,000/-  (Rupees seven lakhs sixty thousand) only to the complainant along with interest @ 6% per annum thereon from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of actual payment.  Besides, the OP is  further liable to pay  compensation of Rs. 10,000/-   (Rupees ten thousand) only  towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and a  sum of Rs.5000/-  (Rupees five thousand) only towards litigation expenses.  The order be complied with by the OP  within a period of  thirty days from the date of communication of this order,   failing which the complainant will be  at liberty to execute the order  against the OP   in accordance with law.

The order is pronounced on this day the  10^th August,  2023  under the seal & signature of the President and Member (W) of the Commission.

                                                                                      (K.C.RATH)    

                                                                                       PRESIDENT

 Dictated & corrected by me

          President                                                                                    

I agree                                                                            

(S.Tripathy)                                                                           

Member (W)                                                                                                                                                 

Transcribed by Smt. M.Kanungo, Sr.Steno