1. This is a petition filed U/S 12 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for recovery of money, compensation and other reliefs. The petition is filed by one Md. Fakar Uddin (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner/complainant) against the Branch Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited, Nagaon Branch (hereinafter referred to as the opposite party) praying for recovery of money and other relief.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant, namely, Md. Fakar Uddin purchased one Auto Rickshaw (PIAGGIO GR/APE PASSENGER) vide Chassis No.MBX0000ZFPD-491296 , Engine No.RZDZII7665 which was hypothecated with S.B.I. Nagaon Branch and duly insured with the New India Insurance Company Ltd. Nagaon Branch. Further case of the complainant is that after taking the calculated installment amount of R.5699/-(Rupees Five Thousand Six hundred and Ninety nine) only, the insurer issued policy in favour of the complainant vide Insurance Policy No.5307013112010000. He stated that unfortunately on last 19/01/2013 at about 9 P.M., his said vehicle was stolen by miscreants which was parked by the side of the road near Pub Lorimukh Senior Madrassa and thereafter, he filed a case before the Rupahihat Police Station which was registered vide Rupahihat P. S. Case 22 /2013 but the Police failed to find out the stolen vehicle and submitted final report in the case. The complainant also stated that he intimated the opposite party about the stealing of his vehicle and submitted his claim petition along with all relevant documents to get the benefit of the insurance but the opposite party did not turn up to settle his matter and without any investigation and having justified case repudiated his claim. He submits that such act on the part of the opposite party caused mental pain and agony to this complainant and caused him to suffer financial loss and hardship which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint is before this Commission praying for relief.
3. The opposite party filed his written version denying all the claim of the petitioner. By his written version, the opposite party took the plea that the complainant has no cause of action to file this petition before this Commission, that the petition does not attract the provision of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act that the petition is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties etc. By his written version, the opposite party stated that there is no negligence, delay or deficiency in service on his part but that the petitioner himself violated the terms of the Insurance policy by not getting the insured vehicle registered with District Transport Office/Regional Transport office even after lapse of 8 months of its purchase and this answering opposite party after proper investigation has repudiated his claim on justified ground. Hence, the answering opposite party prays from dismissal of the claim petition.
5. On pleading of parties the following points came out to decide for adjudication of the case.
- Whether the opposite party being the representative of the insurer company of the complaint’s stolen Auto Rickshaw (PIAGGIO GR/APE PASSENGER) repudiated his claim without justified ground and thereby caused financial loss and harassment to the complainant and such act, on the part of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for?
6. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and exhibited several documents in support of his claim. Opposite party has also examined himself as D.W.1. Witnesses for both parties were cross examined by their opponents.
7. After hearing argument advanced by the complainant side, this Commission proceed to delivered the judgment in the case as follows.
8. Decision and reasons thereof:-
9. For the sake of brevity both the Point (i) & (ii) are taken jointly for discussion and decision:-
The claim of the complainant is that he duly insured his stolen Auto Rickshaw with the New India Insurance Company and paid the calculated installment amount for which the insurer company issued policy in his favour for his stolen vehicle but the opposite party without proper investigation and having justified ground repudiated his claim for his stolen car. In support of his claim, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1. In his evidence in affidavit he deposed that he purchased one Auto Rickshaw (PIAGGIO GR/APE PASSENGER) vide Chassis No.MBX0000ZFPD-491296 , Engine No.RZDZII7665 which was hypothecated with S.B.I. Nagaon Branch and duly insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited. Nagaon Branch. Further evidence of this witness is that after taking the calculated installment amount of Rs.5699.00 (Rupees Five Thousand Six hundred and Ninety nine) only, the insurer issued policy in favour of the complainant vide Insurance Policy No.5307013112010000. Further deposition of P.W.1 is that unfortunately on last 19/01/2013, his said vehicle was stolen by miscreants which was parked by the side of the road near Pub Lorimukh Senior Madrassa and thereafter, the complainant filed a case before the Rupahihat Police Station which was registered vide Rupahihat P. S. Case 22 /2013 but Police failed to trace out the stolen vehicle and submitted final report in the case. The complainant as P.W.1 also stated that he intimated the opposite party about the stealing of his vehicle and submitted his claim petition along with all relevant documents to get the benefit of the insurance policy but the opposite party did not turn up to settle his matter and without any investigation and having justified ground repudiated his claim. His further evidence is that such act on the part of the opposite party caused mental pain and agony to him and also caused him to suffer financial loss and hardship which amounts to deficiency in service.
The opposite party while filing his written version submitted that the petitioner himself violated the terms of the Insurance policy by not getting the insured vehicle registered with the District Transport Office/Regional Transport office even after lapse of 8 months of its purchase and this answering opposite party after proper investigation has repudiated the claim of the petitioner on justified ground. In support of the written version, D.W.1 Sri Manju Kumar Bezbaruah adduced evidence that there is no negligence, delay or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party but the petitioner himself violated the terms of the Insurance policy by not getting the insured vehicle registered with the District Transport Office/Regional Transport office even after lapse of 8 months of its purchase and the opposite party after proper investigation has repudiated the claim of the petitioner on justified ground and hence, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
The P.W.1 and the D.W 1 were cross examined by their opponents. The admitted fact is that the petitioner got his stolen vehicle insured with the New India Insurance Company and paid the premium and the Insurance Company also issued policy bearing No.5307013112010000 in favour of the complainant in connection with the stolen vehicle. The fact that the vehicle was stolen away by miscreants was also not denied. The opposite party took the plea that the complainant violated the terms of the Insurance policy by not getting the insured vehicle registered with the District Transport Office/Regional Transport office even after lapse of 8 months of its purchase. In his cross examination, the D.W.1 admitted that apart from him, other employees in the office also look after the claim of different persons and they also use to receive documents in connection with such claim. He admitted in his cross that he did not know if any information was given by the claimant to D.T.O. for getting his vehicle registered. The complainant in his evidence in chief also exhibited a document vide Ex. 13 from where it is seen that the complainant on last 13-01-2013 submitted a written application before the D.T.O. Nagaon for registering his PIAGGIO GR/APE Auto Rickshaw. Thus, it is found that the opposite party has not succeeded to prove that the claimant did not take any initiative to get his stolen vehicle registered with D.T.O. Nagaon before it was stolen.
Honorable Apex court in Life Insurance Corporation of India-Vs-Komalavalli Kamba & Ors. Reported in (1984) AIR, 1014, 1984 SCR (3) 350 has held that the general rule is that the contract of Insurance will be complete only when the party to whom an offer has been made accepts unconditionally and communicates the acceptance to the person making the offer. Here, in the instant case the fact of issuing policy in favour of the complainant regarding the stolen car was not disputed. From the document exhibited by the complainant in his evidence vide Ex.2, it is seen that an Insurance Policy was issued by New India Insurance Company Ltd., Nagaon Branch Office in connection with the stolen vehicle (PIAGGIO GR/APE PASSENGER) which was valid upto 13/05/2013. Admittedly the said vehicle was stolen on 19/01/2013. Hence, the claimant is entitled to get the benefit of the insurance policy issued in his favour subject to the terms and condition of the policy.
In view of above observation we are of the opinion that the complainant has successfully established that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
In result both the points for discussion and decision are answered in affirmative and go in favour of the complainant.
O R D E R
10. In view of the above discussion, it is found that the petitioner has succeeded to prove that there was a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner U/S 12 of the Consumer protection is allowed on contest. Issue direction to the opposite party to pay the complainant the insurance benefit for his theft Auto Rickshaw (PIAGGIO GR/APE PASSENGER) vide Chassis No.MBX0000ZFPD-491296, Engine No.RZDZII7665 as per terms and condition of the policy No.5307013112010000 along with an amount of Rs.5,000.00 as compensation with interest @ 12% per annum from today till realization.
Inform all the parties concern.
Given under the hand and seal of this Commission, we signed and delivered this Judgment on this 18th Day of January, 2023.
