Back
MANIPUR STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IMPHAL
Th. Saimon, Presiding Member, M. Pemila, Member, N. Banikumar Singh, Member
Khumujam Robindro Singh – Complainant
versus
Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. – Opp. Party
Complaint Case No.1 of 2018
Decided on 9.11.2022
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Kh. Bheigya, Kh. Iboyai,, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Aribam Deni Sharma, Advocate
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 47] – Insurance Services – Upon perusal of the records at hand, it seems that the I.O. had duly investigated into the case and stated that the case has no clue – As such, further direction for investigation is likely to entail similar consequences. Again, the materials on record are not sufficient to take cognizance of the offence – As such, Court was of the view that it would be proper to accept the Final report – Accordingly, the Final Report is accepted and the case is closed – On facts on consideration of the rival contentions of the opposite parties in regard to the delay in making insurance claim, repudiation of insurance claim on the ground of non-conclusion/pendency of investigation which rather amounts to deficiency in service and the plea of genuineness of keys of the stolen JCB vehicle have nothing to do in the case of loss/theft of vehicle when such theft/loss has been proved as is done in the present case – Due to the theft/loss of the vehicle and due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has been rendered workless and lifeless, Consequently, we hold that the opposite parties would be liable to indemnify the complainant to the tune of insured amount under the Insurance Certificate cum policy (Ext.A/2) under the terms and conditions of Commercial Vehicle Package Policy (Ext.-A/3) – Complaint disposed off. [Paras 8 to 16]
Result: Complaint disposed off.
JUDGMENT
This present Complaint case is filed on behalf of the Complainant named above, under Section 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for loss of vehicle JCB Excavator, Registration No. MN-01-9843, insured with the opposite parties under Policy No. 322606/31/2016/492.
2. Brief facts of the case as per the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of one JCB Excavator being Registration No. MN-01-9843 and he insured the said vehicle with the opposite parties under Policy No. 322606/31/2016/492, being Commercial Package Policy, for one year with validity period for the insurance from 30.06.2015 till midnight of 28.06.2016 and the said commercial policy covered various legal liabilities as per the provisions of Section I of the said policy which reads as—
Section I - Loss of Damage to the Vehicle Insured;
1 - The company will indemnify the insured against loss or damage to the vehicle insured hereunder and/or its accessories whilst thereon;
i. By fire, explosion, self ignition or lightning;
ii. By burglary, housebreaking or theft;
iii. By riot and strike;
iv. By earthquake (fire and shock damage)
v. By flood, typhoon, hurricane, storm, tempest, inundation, cyclone, hailstorm, frost;
vi. By accidental external means;
vii. By malicious act;
viii. By terrorist activity;
ix. Whilst in transit by road, rail, inland waterway, lift, elevator or air;
x. By landslide, rockslide, etc.
It is presented as a fact of the present consumer complaint that in the intervening night of 1st and 2nd October, 2015, the insured JCB Vehicle was found missing from its parked place at Lilong Usoipokpi road side. On the next day, i.e. on 2nd October, 2015, the complainant tried to search and trace out the whereabouts of his JCB Excavator but he could not find it. Evidently, the complainant lodged a written complaint report with the Officer-in-Charge of Lilong PS and an FIR case being No. 68(10)2015 Lilong PS, u/s 379 IPC was registered for investigation. Consequent upon completion of the investigation, the IO of the case submitted Final Report dated 31.05.2016 under Section 173 Cr.P.C., wherein it was noted that the case had no clue and was closed accordingly vide order dated 09.06.2016 passed by the Ld. CJM, Thoubal in Cril Misc. (FR) Case No. 11 of 2016 arising out of FIR No. 68(10)2015 LIL PS.
3. The complainant then orally informed about the incident of missing of the JCB Excavator to the Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company, Imphal Branch on 04.10.2015 but he was directed by the Branch Manager to file claim for loss of the said vehicle. The complainant also reported the incident of missing of his JCB Excavator to the District Transport Officer of Imphal East, Imphal West, Thoubal, Bishnupur, Churachandpur, Ukhrul, Senapati, Chandel and Kangpokpi by registered post on 06.10.2015 and 07.10.2015.
It is also presented as a fact of the present consumer complaint that despite intimation of the claim for loss of the JCB Excavator to the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, Imphal Branch, the complainant has not received any positive response though as per the provision of Section 1 of the Commercial Package Policy which the complainant insured his JCB Vehicle under Policy No. 322606/31/2016/492, he is entitled to be indemnified for the loss. Having left no other alternative to receive his claim, the complainant has filed the present consumer complaint before this Commission, with the prayer to pass appropriate order directing the opposite parties to compensate the amount of loss of the vehicle, JCB Excavator.
4. The opposite parties contested the consumer complaint by filing joint written version. While admitting certain allegations, the opposite parties denied any liability in the present case stating that the consumer complaint is premature as claim of the complainant for the loss of his JCB is under consideration. The claim of the complainant has neither been rejected nor repudiated by the higher auth
