OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C.66/2015
Present:-
1) Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2) Smti Archana Deka Lahkar -Member
3) Md Jamatul Islam - Member
Mr Malbar Hussain -Complainant
S/O- Hashem Ali, Vill- Gutipara Part-III,
P.O- Gutipara,P.S- Bilasipara
Dist-Dhubri,Assam
Presently residing at Gandhibasti,
H.No-5, Near Gandhibasti Majid,
P.O-Silpukhuri,P.S-Chandmari,
Dist-Kamrup(M),Assam
-VS-
1) The United India Insurance Co.Ltd. -Opp.Party
Represented by Chairman cum Managing Director
24,Whites Road,Chennai-600014
2) The Regional Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
Christanbasti,Guwahati-05
3) The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
Bilasipara,Mahamaya Building,2nd floor,Main Road,Bilasipara
P.O& P.S- Bilasipara,Dist-Dhubri,Assam,Pin-783348
Appearance:
Ld advocate Ms N. Nasrin for the complainant and Ld.advocate Mr.Abinash Talukdar for the opp.parties.
Date of oral argument - 20.08.2018
Date of judgment - 30.08.2018
JUDGMENT
This is a proceeding U/S- 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
- The complaint as filed by the complainant was admitted on 27/08/2015 and notices were served upon the opp. parties and they also filed their joint written statement .The complainant filed his evidence in affidavit on 06/05/2016 and he was cross-examined and then the opp. party side filed evidence of Sri Nagen Ch Bharali and he was also cross-examined by the complainant side . Thereafter , both sides’ Ld counsels filed respective written argument . Finally , on 20/08/18 , we heard the oral argument of Ld advocate Ms N. Nasrin for the complainant and of Ld advocate Mr Abinash Talukdar for the opp. party and today , we deliver the judgment which is as below-
- The pleading of the complainant is that his motor cycle ( a new 150 CC Motor Cycle ) which was registered vide Registration No-AS17D7394 and insured with United India Insurance Co.Ltd. (O.P.No-1) vide Policy No-130681/31/12/01/00002389 (from 28/12/12 to 27/12/13) ; was stolen away by some miscreants on 11/12/13 from the H.No-5, Gandhi Basti and he lodged FIR to the police of Chandmari Police Station , who investigated the matter registering a case vide Chandmari Police Station Case No-624/13 ,U/S-374 IPC , and he also informed the DTO ,Kamrup and the opp. party about the matter and he also filed a claim before the opp. party , and the Inspector of Police , CID H.Q , Assam , Guwahati submitted a report to the effect that the lost vehicle was not recovered . This pleading of the complainant is admitted by the opp. party side .
- It is also found from the pleading of the parties that both sides admit that Opp.Party No-3 considered the claim filed by the complainant and disposed of the claim on 12/05/14 and paid Rs. 54,500/- out of policy amount of Rs.68,000/- . Both sides are also found to admit that the complainant , on 21/05/14 , sent a representative to Opp.Party No-2 & 3 through Registered Post praying for payment of another amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation in addition n to Rs. 54,500/- which was already paid to them but they have not taken any step till date . In this respect , the plea of the opp. parties is that , as per policy condition , the depreciation value of a vehicle comes on the basis of age of the vehicle and they considered the depreciation value of the vehicle as well as compulsory excess of Rs.10,000/- which was imposed at the time of issue of policy which the complainant did not object at the time of taking the policy imposing Rs.10,000/- as compulsory excess in respect of theft is not illegal, which can not also be said as violation of Sec-1(b) of the policy . Their ,second plea is that while the policy was issued to the complainant , then the provision of deduction of Rs.10,000/- as compulsory excess was written in the body of the policy and the complainant agreed to that policy. In the cross-examination of the complainant , he admits that in the policy and the cover-note (Ext-1 & 2) it is written that “compulsory excess of Rs.10,000/- is imposed for each and every claim arising out of theft of two wheeler insurance”. He also admits that regarding that writing , he neither objected at the time of issuance of policy nor he wrote to IRDA or any other authority objecting to that writing. Thus, it is seen that , at the time of issuance of policy , the complainant accepted that condition without objection and that proves that the said provision is one of the conditions/ terms of the policy agreed by both the parties. So,we hold that the said provision / condition/term is binding on both the parties . So, we hold that the complainant has no authority to object to that provision . So, we declare that Opp.Party No-3 rightly deducted Rs.10,000/- from the IDV of the lost vehicle . The complainant has also no objection to deduction of another amount of Rs.3,400/-in some other heads . Thus, it is crystal clear that Opp.Party No-3 rightly settled the claim at Rs.54,500/-, which they have already paid to the complainant . As such , in our opinion , the complainant has no cause of action to file this complaint against the opp . parties and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed .
- Because of what has been discussed as above , we dismiss the complaint that was filed by the complainant against the opp. parties on contest.
Given under our hands and seals today on this 30th August ,2018.
(Smt Archana Deka Lahkar) (Md.Jamatul Islam) (Md.Sahadat Hussain) Member Member President