Back
ORISSA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CUTTACK
Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.M. Patnaik, President &
Mr. Pramodnath Das, Member
GAJENDRA PRASAD PANDA—Complainant
versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.—Opposite Party
Case No. 6 of 2000—Decided on 31.10.2003
For the Complainant :Mr. N. Patra, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party :Mr. P. Ray and Mr. P.K. Parida, Advocates.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections 12 and 17-Insurance claim-Insured truck was stolen on 19.12.1998-Consumer complaint claiming policy amount resisted on a plea that insured violated policy conditions in not informing the police as well as insurance company immediately-Matter was reported to the police and police found vehicle to have been stolen but no other clue could be found and the case was closed-Even if there was some delay in reporting the matter to police, neither FIR nor the final report reflected that case was false-Mere fact that matter was reported to the police and insurance company after some delay would not defeat claim of the complainant-Insurance company directed to make payment of the policy amount with interest at 9 per cent from 9.8.1999 till payment.
Merely for the delay in informing the police or the Insurance Company the case cannot be held to be a false one. That apart the Insurance Company has only taken the plea that the complainant did not cooperate with the Investigator. The letter of the Investigator dated 23.11.2000 addressed to the Branch Manager merely proves that on one occasion the complainant was absent at his native place when the Investigator visited the place. It is not known whether Investigator again visited to that village. That apart we are surprised to note that he was appointed as an Investigator, it is not known what type of investigation he carried on in the absence of the complainant. The complainant had mentioned the details of the truck, registration number etc. The Investigator could have ascertained by examining the persons in the locality about the truck. Not a single document is filed from the side of the Insurance Company to indicate that in fact in what way they proceeded with the investigation. The mere plea that the matter was lately informed to the police and the Insurance Company would not defeat the case of the complainant. Accordingly we allow this complaint petition and direct the Insurance Company to make the payment of the amount assured under the policy with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from 9.8.1999 till payment. The same should be paid within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. No costs.
Mr. Justice D.M. Patnaik, President—This is an original case.
2. Complainant had insured his truck bearing Regd. No. OR-7-C-2298 a Tata 1210 with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. During the validity of the insurance policy during night hours on 19.12.1998, the truck was stolen when it was stationed in front of the house of the complainant. Complainant lodged FIR on 20.12.1998. He informed the Insurance Company about the theft on 20.1.1999. The Insurance Company supplied the claim forms during August, 1999 and he filed the same with them on 18.8.1999. He claims Rs. 5,00,000/- the sum assured under the policy for the loss incurred.
3. The Insurance Company filed a written version. It is their case that on receiving the intimation they deputed the investigator one K.B. Vora, Retired I.P.S. Officer to investigate the matter but it is alleged that because of the non-cooperation of the complainant the investigation could not proceed effectively and nothing could be established in clear terms about the loss sustained by the complainant. It is further their case that the complainant violated the policy condition in not informing the police immediately of the occurrence and not only that he informed the Insurance Company only on 9.8.1999. The complainant failed to prove the fact of theft.
4. Heard Mr. N. Patra the learned Counsel for the complainant and Mr. P. Ray the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company and Mr. P.K. Parida the learned Counsel for the Aska Co-operative Central Bank Ltd.
Admittedly the vehicle Tata-1210 was insured during the period from 19.6.1998 to 18.6.1999 for a total sum of Rs. 4,59,800/-, premium was paid Rs. 10,260/-. The policy also covered theft. The registration certificate of the vehicle stood in the name of the complainant as is cleared from the document of the R.T.O. The A.D. receipt dated 12.7.1999 indicates their letter addressed to the Branch Manager of the Insurance Company for necessary action. The certified copy of the police final report dated 28.12.1999 shows the fact of theft was true but there was no clue However it is further indicated that the matter should be reopened in future if any clue would be available.
5. All these documents do prove that the complainant at the relevant time was the owner in possession of the truck in question. And he has intimated the police the next day. Police investigation has been carried out as per the police records. We accept the case of the police that infact they could not trace out the truck and, therefore, closed the file holding that there was no clue.
6. The Insurance Company in the written version have only taken the technical plea of the complainant intimating both the police and Insurance Company lately. Though it could be said that there was delay of one month in informing the Insurance Company, there was no delay in informing the police. The report of the Aska Police shows the vehicle was taken by the driver Siva Patnaik on 20.11.1998 to Bhubaneswar loaded with rice. The driver brought it back on 21.11.1998 around 5 p.m. In the absence of any engagement the truck was laying idle till it was stolen in the night on 19.12.1998 as alleged.
7. Mr. Ray the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company highlighted the fact that though complainant stated to have informed the police on 19.12.1998 but the FIR indicates that the police received the information only on 24.5.1999. Secondly it is pointed out that the Insurance Company only received the intimation on 9.8.1999. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel delay in informing about the theft certainly cast a doubt in the complainants case.
8. We have carefully gone through the report of the police. Even assuming for the sake of argument the police received the information after some amount of delay, but nothing is reflected in the FIR or the final report that the case was a false one. Therefore, merely for the delay in informing the police or the Insurance Company the case cannot be held to be a false o
