Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/41/2022

Subhash Chandra Mukherjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Raman Kumar Thakur

11 Oct 2022

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-15-03-2022

Date of final hearing-11-10-2022

 Date of Order-11-10-2022

Case No. 41/2022

Subhash Chandra Mukherjee S/o Dulal Chandra Mukherjee R/o Qr.No. 139, Sector-3/D, P.O.-Sector-3, P.S.- B.S.City

Vs.

1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office 30, 34-35 Ground Floor, Vipul Trade Centre Sector-48, Sohana Raod Gurgaon-122002
2.  Anita Raheja Asst. Manager Untied India Insurance Co. Ltd.

D.O.-30/Dvivisional Office-30 

 

                             Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

                  Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

 

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-Judgement-

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer to direct the O.Ps. to pay Rs. 34,450/- IDV value of the motor cycle and also to pay Rs 20,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and litigation cost respectively to him.

2.    Complainant’s case in short is that his motorcycle  bearing registration No. JH-09-AB- 3881 was insured with O.Ps. (United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) vide policy No.22300031210160088945 valid from 06.03.2021 to 05.03.2022 having Insured Declared Value (in short IDV) Rs. 34,450/- and said motorcycle was stolen away on 07.03.2021 by some unknown thief from the residence of the complainant at Sector-3/D Qr. No. 139, B.S.City, Bokaro, for which B.S. City P.S. Case No. 47/2021 dt. 08.03.2021 was registered and investigated, which ended by filing final form, showing occurrence true having no clue. Complainant submitted his claim before the O.Ps. which was not allowed on the ground that complainant was unable to get the vehicle transferred in the name of insurance co. Hence this case has been filed.

3.   On issuance of notice O.Ps. appeared on 09.06.2022 but they have not filed any W.S. hence this case is being decided without W.S.

4.  Now, point for consideration is that whether complainant is entitled to get relief as claimed or not?

5.  It is admitted fact that vehicle concerned was insured with the O.Ps. during the relevant period. Further admitted fact is that claim of the complainant has been considered by the O.Ps. and only on the ground that registration certificate of the vehicle concerned has not been transferred in the name of the O.P. claim has not been settled.

6. On perusal of the papers annexed with the complaint petition it appears that annexure-A is photo copy of motor insurance policy related to the vehicle concerned in which IDV is Rs. 34,450/- for which vehicle concerned has been insured and accordingly premium has been realized by the O.Ps. from the complainant. It is not in dispute that vehicle concerned was registered in the name of the complainant (photo copy of registration certificate is annexure-A/1). Annexure-B series are the photo copy of the papers related to filing of B.S. City P.S. Case No. 47/2021 by which complainant has reported the matter to the Police and in that very case  investigation concluded with finding that occurrence is true but clueless (Annexure-C).  Annexure-D series are the photo copy of E-mail correspondence made between the parties and another letter dt. 17.02.2022 written by the O.Ps. in the name of R.T.O. Bokaro in which it has been mentioned that the theft claim has been approved by competent authority of the O.Ps. hence request has been made for transfer of the R.C. in the name of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. This letter alone is sufficient to prove that claim of the complainant was found genuine and it has been approved by the O.Ps. and only it is not being settled on the ground that R.C. has not been transferred in the name of the Insurance Co.

    7. On careful perusal of the case record we are of the view that the condition related to transfer of the R.C. in respect to the vehicle which has already been stolen away is not a reasonable condition and it is not acceptable in the eye of law. Therefore, on this ground alone claim of the complainant cannot be withheld.

8.    In light of above discussion we are of the opinion that  there is deficiency in service by the O.Ps. and complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed. Accordingly this point is being decided in favour of the complainant.

9.    Accordingly prayer of the complainant is being allowed in the following manner:-

O.Ps. are directed to  pay Rs. 34,450/-  (IDV) to the complainant within 60 days from receipt/production of this order failing which they shall pay interest @ 10% per annum from 15.03.2022 (the date on which complaint was filed). Further O.Ps. are directed to pay Rs. 4000/- as compensation and Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost within 60 days from receipt/production of this order.

 

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

 

                                                                                               

 

 

                                                                                       (Baby Kumari)

                                                                                          Member