Complainant’s case is that he is a owner of a commercial vehicle baring no.WB 37 3223. The vehicle was under insurance from 4.4.2011 to 3.4.2012. On 29.4.2011 the vehicle was lost . On 2.5.2011 case was lodged before Dankuni P.S. FIR no.6711 dated 22.5.2011. The complainant sent letter to the insurance company explaining the delay on 30.9.2011. Police
gave FRT on 30.8.2011. Opposite issued letter to the complainant on 26.8.14 informing to submit some documents. But the Insurance company, Op did not take any effective steps for claim. The complainant sent lawyer’s notice on 9.9.2014 to the oP for settlement of the claim without further delay. But the Op did not take effective step for payment. Hence, this complaint.
The OP contested the case by filing WV denying inter alia all material allegations. Only case of the Op is that OP urged the complainant for relevant papers several times but the complainant did not submit the same. Hence , the case should be dismissed.
Complainant filed Xerox copy of Policy, FIR Copy, Certificate of Registration, copy of FRT, Certificate of fitness etc. Evidence in chief and WNA. OP filed Evidence in chief and WNA.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Whether the complainant is a consumer ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
- Whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Point no.1
It is admitted fact that the complainant insured his vehicle with the OP Company after payment of necessary amount. So the complainant is a consumer under the oP as per C.P.Act, 1986. The Point no.1 is thus answered in favour of the complainant.
Point no.2 and 3
Both the points are taken up together for easiness of discussion.
It is alleges that the vehicle in question was lost on 29.4.2011 and GD was lodged on 2.5.2011 . Thereafter, police written information under 154 Cr.P.C that vehicles was lost on 29.4.2011 and information receipt at P.S. 2.5.2011 at 22.15 hours with respect to GD no.414 of 2.5.2011 time 22.25 hrs. Such delaying in making GD by the complainant is very negligible delaying. It is the matter of the police authority when they would start investigation and when they would file final report or filed charge sheet . The Insurance company admitted the Insurance policy , admitted the existence of the policy but denied the claim on the ground of delaying and lodging the FIR to the P.S. and giving information to the Insurance company . Complainant has filed Annexure IV Xerox copy from United India Insurance Co. Ltd. dated 23.9.2011. No documents have been filed by the Insurance Company . Complainant informed the claim to the oP but the oP denied the claim. One document Annexure IV sent by the oP to the complainant shows that loss occurred on 1.5.2011 while claim intimated to this office on 17.,9.2011 i.e. after lapse of four and half months by this letter the Divisional Manager, requested proper clarification from the complainant regarding unusual delay in submitting information loss thereby prejudicing the prospect of investigation. In evidence in chief OP stated at para 29 , that there is unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR . Op also stated information of alleged theft was not informed to the oP, which is mandatory. It is also stated that Op Insurance company had on several occasions asked for the relevant papers , the complainant intentionally did not submit the same.But it appears from the record that theft occurred on 29.4.11 and on 2.5.11 GD was lodged. The complainant is not a literate person and
village people . It is common practice that before going to police station some thinking is necessary , the common people has want of proper advisor inspite of that complainant approached the police station on 2.5.2011 and lodged the information. It is true that complainant did not claim or inform the Insurance authority like information to the Police. But it is the police who is the actual Investigating agency of this country and Insurance company has no machinery or capacity to make investigation of cognizable case as laid down in Indian Penal Code and Indian Penal Procedure Code. Accordingly, the complainant acted rightly in approaching policy authority. Police made investigation and finally made FRT. Complainant is not liable for that. It is nowhere in the police report that vehicle was not lost. So the evidence on oath which has been stated by the oP in para 29 “as there is no theft of vehicle , complainant and information of alleged theft found from FIR , Chargesheet on 12.5.2015 and all the papers has been fabricated for the purpose of the false claim”. This statement of the oP cannot be accepted . The complainant has no capacity to prepare a charge sheet and GD entry and First information report etc. these are the documents of Police authority. So the statement of oP in para 29 of Evidence in chief is not acceptable, rather it is conclusive presumption that to avoid compensation the Insurance company has utterly neglected to make cooperation and advice complainant to take proper step. The OP are using the scribed words in the Insurance policy. This is another deficiency and neglect to the claim of the complainant as well as to the case of the complainant.
We must consider the facts, circumstances comes from the village people . They are not conversant with the technique of Insurance company , who are always busy to find the clue and
deprive the blaze illiterate man who has less knowledge of understanding regarding the contention of law . However, the lodged claim and such conduct of the late claim should be ignored , because the OP was informed in the meantime because they are raising the question of delay . But there was no delay in lodging FIR but may be delay in the Information of claim before the oP and such kind of conduct of the village illiterate people regarding late claim must be ignored where the fact is that the vehicle was stolen.
When there is sufficient material in record that the vehicle was theft and the vehicle was insured. Police was informed at once. So the OP Insurance company is bound by legal obligation of contract to compensate the loss of the complainant. Accordingly, there is no hesitation to hold after circumspection over material on records that Op has willingly negligent in performing the duty of due diligence to the complainant. As such there is deficiency in service of the oP/Insurance company. As such the complainant is entitled to get relief as pre C.P.Act, 1986. Hence it is
Ordered
That the CC no. 226 of 2014 be and the same is allowed on contest. The Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.14,00,000/- to the complainant as insured value . The Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for his mental agony and harassment. The Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards litigation cost.
-6-
All the above orders should be complied by the Op within 30 days from the date of this order, i.d. complainant is at liberty to execute the order by filing Execution case.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
