View 21092 Cases Against United India Insurance
Somnath Das filed a consumer case on 22 Mar 2023 against United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in the Bankura Consumer Court. The case no is CC/38/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 27 Mar 2023.
IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BANKURA
Consumer Complaint No. 38/2017
Date of Filing : 04.05.2017
Before:
1. Samiran Dutta Ld. President.
2. Rina Mukherjee Ld. Member.
3. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui Ld. Member.
For the Complainant: self
For the O.P. Ld Advocate Bamashis Banerjee
Complainant
Ganachetana Press, Proprietor- Somenath Das, Sikharia Para, Bankura
Opposite Party
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Nutan Chati, Bankura.
FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT
Order No.33
Dt. 22-03-2023
No step is taken by the complainant.
The O.P./Insurance Company files hazira through advocate.
The case is fixed for argument.
Though the complainant is absent without step but the Commission is inclined to dispose of the case on merit in terms of Section 38(3)(C) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The complainant’s case is that he had a Burglary Standard policy vide Policy No.0315081216P102112798 valid from 16-05-2016 to 15-05-2017 in respect of his Printing Press under the name and style Ganachetana Press. On 04-07-2016 at night a theft was committed at the said Printing Press whereby two Numbering machines, one book binding stapler and equipments for book bindings including a Ladies’ bicycle were stolen worth Rs.15,000/-. The incident was reported to the O.C., Bankura P.S. on 12-07-2016 vide Bankura P.S. Case No.204/16, dt.12-07-2016 u/s 379 IPC and the O.P. / Insurance Company was duly intimated by letter dated: 02-08-2016 but the claim was refused by the O.P./Insurance Co. Hence this case.
Contd…….p/2
Page: 2
O.P./Insurance Co. contested the case by filing a written version denying all the material allegations made in the complaint contending inter alia that the complainant is not entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for due to delay of submission of intimation.
-:Decision with reasons:-
At the time of hearing Ld. Advocate appearing for the O.P. has in his usual fairness submitted before the Commission that the complainant could not prove the loss of articles by the alleged burglary in his Printing Press and he is not entitled to get the loss for his bicycle which is not within the coverage of the Policy.
Having regard to the facts of the case and the documents on record there is no denying the fact that the complainant is the proprietor of Ganachetana Press and the stolen articles are all used for printing and binding purposes which are naturally kept in the press.
The Commission has nothing to disbelieve the complainant’s case and the said delay in intimation of the incident to the Insurance Co. is not fatal to get the compensation if it is otherwise maintainable. However taking into consideration the valuation of the stolen articles the Commission quantifies the compensation at Rs.8,000/- excluding the value of bicycle.
The case therefore succeeds in part.
Hence it is ordered…..
That the case be and the same is allowed in part against the O.P.s.
O.P.s are directed to pay to the complainant Rs.8,000/- within one month from this date in default the decretal amount may be realized in due process of law.
Both parties be supplied copy of this order free of cost.
__________________ ________________ ________________
HON’BLE PRESIDENT HON’BLE MEMBER HON’BLE MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.