West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/22/2018

Sri Subhas Deb - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Dipak Kumar Pal

26 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

   Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Sagarika Sarkar, Member.

                                                                                                         and

                                                                                       Pulak Kumar Singha,Member.

 

Complaint Case No.22/2018.

 

Sri Subhas Deb S/o-Dhananjoy Deb,Vill.Aligunj,P.O.Midnapore, P.S.Kotwali, Dist.Paschim Medinipur,Pin-721101.                                                                    …………..Complainant.                    

                                                  -Vs-                                                                                                                       

United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,at Library Road,Battala Chak ,P.O.Midnapore, P.S.Kotwali,      Dist.Paschuim Medinipur,Pin-721101.                                                               

                                                                                                    ...……….….Opp. Party.

                                                  

              For the Complainant: Mr.Dipak Kumar Pal, Advocate.

             For the O.P.            : Mr.Prodyut Kumar Ghosh, Advocate.

                                                         

                                                                             Date of filing: 26/02/2018                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                              Decided on   : 26/06/2018

                               

ORDER

                          Sagarika Sarkar, Member –This consumer complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act has been filed by the complainant Sri Sibdas Deb against the above named O.P, alleging deficiency in service on their part.

                Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows:-

                 Complainant purchased a new motor  bike having registration No.WB-34A/0580 and obtained insurance policy in respect of his motor bike from the opposite party for any accidental damage and third party claim. It is stated in the petition of complaint that after receiving the premium amount of the said policy O.P.-Insurance Co.issued the certificate of insurance in favour of the complainant being no.0307033110P1001046600 for the period from 25.9.2010 to 24.9.2011. It is further

                                                                                                                                                          Contd……2.

 

 

                                                                                              -2-

stated in the petition of complaint that on 14.07.2011 at 11.30 p.m. the said motor bike of the complainant was stolen in front of a Medical Shop and the complainant informed the said incident to the Kotwali Police Station on 15.7.2011 and also intimated the said incident to the Insurance Company  with all relevant documents. It is stated by the complainant that the Kotwali Police Station in its final report admitted the fact of theft but inspite of submission of all relevant documents O.P.-Insurance Co. did nothing to that effect, and at last they repudiated the claim of the complainant on 23.5.2017 after lapse of a spell of six years from the date of claim for the ground of non-deposition of one of the ignition keys. It is further stated by the complainant that he lost another ignition key before the incident of theft of his motor bike took place but he did not inform the said matter to the Police Station as he had another key to access his said bike. It is the specific allegation of the complainant that his motor bike was under cover of insurance policy at the time of occurrence of theft and repudiating his genuine claim O.P. tantamounts to deficiency in service. Accordingly the complainant has prayed for direction upon the O.P. to pay the value of the vehicle and to pay Rs.30,000/- for mental pain and agony and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.

             O.P. has contested this case by filing a written version. Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the case of the O.P. that the theft of the motor bike took place on 14.7.2011at about 11.30 p.m. but the complainant informed the said matter to the Kotwali P.S. on 15.7.2011 at about 17.25 p.m. and the complainant informed the said matter to the O.P. by an undated letter which was received by the O.P.on 26.7.2011 which means after expiry of 12 days of the said incident. It is further stated by the O.P. that the complainant ought to have informed the said incident immediately after the occurrence of theft took place as per terms and conditions of the policy. It is also stated by the O.P.that after receiving the information of the fact of theft of the vehicle in question they arranged an investigation and during the investigation the complainant failed to produce two ignition keys of his vehicle before the O.P. It is stated by the O.P. that as per insurance policy the value of the vehicle of the complainant is Rs.40,080/- and not Rs.62,000/- as claimed by the complainant. O.P.has stated that the complainant parked his vehicle in front of a medical shop without locking the vehicle, moreover, he left the ignition key with his vehicle for which alleged theft took place and the complainant was solely responsible for the occurrence of said theft. Accordingly the O.P. has prayed for rejection of the complaint with cost.

In support of his case the complainant examined himself as PW-1 and during his evidence some documents were marked as exhibit -1 to 6 respectively and in course of cross-examination of PW-1, one document was marked as exhibit-A on admission. On the other hand O.P.has adduced no oral evidence.                               

                                                                                                                                                   Contd….3.               

                                                                              

 

                                                                                                 -3-    

                                    Points for decision

1.    Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party ?
2.     Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for ?

                                              

  Decision with reasons

           Point no.1:-

                                  The complainant has alleged that the O.P.-Insurance Co. repudiated his claim  though his vehicle was under cover of insurance policy and the ground of repudiation was non- deposition of two ignition keys of his said vehicle. It is the specific defence of the O.P.-Insurance Co. that the complainant did not inform them immediately after the occurrence of said theft of his vehicle in utter violation of terms and conditions of the policy. On perusal of the insurance policy documents it appears that the occurrence of theft  should be informed to the Insurance Co. immediately after the occurrence of theft took place but it is evident that the complainant informed the said incident to the O.P.after expiry of twelve days from the incident took place. Further it appears that complainant himself stated that one of the ignition keys had been lost before the said incident took place but the complainant neither informed the said incident to the Police Station nor to the Insurance Co. It is evident that the complainant did not adopt adequate measure of caution so that no third party by using the lost key could get access to ignition of the insured vehicle. Such indifferent attitude on the part of the complainant is an example of contributory negligence.

               `        In such view of the matter we find no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.-Insurance Co. to repudiate the claim filed by the complainant.

 Point no.1 is decided accordingly against the complainant.

                                              

        

    Point no.2:-

             In view of our above findings in point no.1, the question of deficiency in service does not arise and the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs, as prayed for.

        This point is decided in the negative and against the complainant .

        All points are accordingly disposed of.            

        In the result, the complaint case does not succeed.                    

                                                                                                                                                                            Contd…..4.

 

                                                                                                -4-

 

                 Hence, it is,

                                               Ordered

                          that the complaint case no.22 /2018  is hereby  dismissed without cost.

                                         Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

 

       Dictated and Corrected by me

            Sd/-S. Sarkar.                           Sd/-P.K. Singha                           Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

               Member                                    Member                                        President

                                                                                                                 District Forum

                                                                                                            Paschim Medinipur