AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THAT the present Revision Petition is filed under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 17.10.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter, ''State Commission'') West Bengal at Kolkata in Appeal No. 146/2012. Facts in Brief:
A Bolero car with Registration JU -05U/8755 was owned by Debashis Bose (since deceased) and insured with the Petitioner Insurance Company under Policy No. 3001/5300355/00/000 valid from 29.11.2007 to 28.11.2008 for Rs. 5,53,850. On 20.8.2008 the vehicle was stolen from the possession of the driver while he was at Lakhansai, Noamundi, District, and West Singhbhum. An FIR was lodged on 10.9.2008 by way of an application Under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa, by the deceased husband of the Respondent No. 1. The said application was filed alleging offence Under Sections 379/406, IPC and the accused Under Section 406, IPC. The police submitted Final report against the accused under Section 406, IPC on 24.9.2009. The registered owner of the vehicle, i.e. the deceased husband of the Respondent No. 1, lodged a claim (No. MOT00897695) of Insurance by way of an intimation letter dated 22.9.2008 followed by another letter dated 17.10.2008 together with some 16 documents including the Claim Form, Purchase Challan, Policy Copy, R.C. Book of the vehicle in original, etc. which were duly received with date and seal by the Insurer''s office in their Calcutta address. The insurer, Debashis Bose, died on 7.11.2008 leaving his wife and son as legal heirs. The insurer, vide one letter date 22.6.2009 addressed to Debashis Bose, informed that the subject vehicle was lying in the custody of Darawali Police Station, Siwan District and again, vide another letter of the same date, i.e. 22.6.2009, that the vehicle was lying in the custody of Tarawali Police Station, Patna City. They requested the insured to take possession of the vehicle and to withdraw the claim within 8 days failing which the claim would be treated as ''no claim''. But, the Complainants view was that the Insurance Company should have informed the concerned Police station to seize the vehicle as FIR had been lodged with Noamundi Police Station. Therefore, the Insurance Company was not willing to settle the insurance claim. Hence, Complainant filed a complaint No. 110/2010 before the District Forum with a claim of Rs. 5,53,850 with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of occurrence.
THE district forum decided the case in favor of the complainant and the O.P. are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,53,850 with interest @9% p.a. from one month after the date of submission of the claim till the date of realization; further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 75,000 for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000 within 45 days from the date of communication of the order. Aggrieved by the order of district forum, the O.Ps. filed an appeal No. FA/146/2012 before the state commission.
THE State Commission gone through the pleadings of the parties together with evidence, documents and held as: The Appellant''s intimation about the recovery of the missing vehicle as mentioned herein before is indeed misguiding and suffers contradiction and is not supported with convincing document from any reliable source.
In spite of the short comings as pointed out in respect of some of the arguments placed by the Appellant we are much inclined to hold that the belated intimation to the Police and the Insurance Company about the missing of the subject vehicle against the clear stipulations as made out in the terms and conditions of the policy the Respondent/Complainant has failed to justify their claim. The Appeal succeeds.... The impugned judgment is set aside.
AGGRIEVED by the order of state commission, the complainant preferred this revision petition. We have heard both the Counsels who vehemently argued the matter.
THAT the Petitioners being the legal heirs of the owner of the vehicle/deceased husband of the Petitioner No. 1/deceased father of Petitioner No. 2, are Consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
THAT the respondent Counsel argued that the claim, admittedly, was intimated after the delay of one month which is in breach of policy terms and conditions on which account alone the claim deserves to be dismissed. Reliance is placed upon decision of Hon''ble National Commission in First Appeal No. 321 of 2005, New India Assurance Company v. Trilochan Jane. But on perusal of evidence on record that, thereafter the O.P. sent two letters both dated 22.6.2009 addressed to Debashis Bose by one of which it was informed that the vehicle in question No. JH 05U 8755 had been recovered and was in the custody of DARAWALI Police station, SIWAN District whereas by the other letter of the same date it was informed that the said vehicle was in the custody of TARAWALI Police Station, PATNA City. By the said letters they also requested to take possession of the vehicle and withdraw the claim within 8 days failing which they would treat the claim as ''No Claim''.
IT is absolute and clear that the vehicle in question was actually theft took place and the contention put forward by O.Ps. vide their both letters date 22.6.2009 is after thought contention to avert the liabilities to pay the insured sum it is natural that a vehicle cannot be in the custody of two different police stations at a time. Said letters are self -contradictory. Therefore, the submission put forward by O.Ps. on oath are hardly sustainable and tenable in law.
WE have perused the letter of intimation to O.P. (Annexure -P -9) vide which the deceased husband of the Petitioner No. 1/owner of the vehicle intimated the West Singhbhum, Jharkhand Branch of the Respondents about the theft of the vehicle and made a request for settlement of his claim. The said letter categorically states that the owner of the vehicle tried to contact the toll free telephone numbers of the Respondents to lodge his claim but could not do so. On repeated failure to lodge the claim through the toll -free telephone numbers provided, the owner of the vehicle went personally to the West Singhbhum Branch of the Respondents and lodged the claim with endorsement. It was about 150 kms away from his residence/Therefore, immediately after lodging of the FIR No. 41/08 by the Noamundi Police Station in respect of the theft of the insured vehicle, the owner of the vehicle took all possible steps to lodge his claim with the Respondents. Therefore, we are of considered view that, the State Commission erred in holding that there was a belated intimation to the Insurance Company -O.P. about the theft of the vehicle.
CONSIDERIN G all these circumstances it appears that the O.P. instead of settling the rightful claim of the insured resorted to unfair trade practices of denying the claim to the insured/owner of the vehicle. O.Ps. behaviour is evasive; it is deficiency in service. The O.P. are liable for such unethical behaviour by which complainant has suffered mental agony and violation. Hence, we set aside the order passed by State Commission and restore the order of District Forum with punitive cost of Rs. 25,000 on the O.P. who have intentionally dragged the matter unnecessarily. O.P. is directed to comply with the entire order within 45 days otherwise it will carry interest @ 9% per annum till its recovery.