This case has arisen out of a complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The fact of the case is that Dilip Bhattacharjee was the owner of Bajaj Pulsar Motor cycle bearing No:BR37B4098, Engine No:JEGBSK10749, Chassis No:MD2JDJDZZSCK10727, duly insured with O.P/Insurance Company vide Policy No:OG-20-2404-1802-00021206 valid from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 midnight with compulsory PA cover (owner driver) amounting Rs.15,00,000/- and he had paid premium of Rs.331/- as PA cover for owner/driver and he had valid driving license vide No:-WB60/53396 valid from 14.05.2010 to 13.05.2022.
That on 16.06.2020 Dilip Bhattacherjee went to his office driving his said motor cycle and at about 01:15 PM one four wheeler which was coming from Lodhan side towards Kishanganj in opposite direction did head on collision with his motor cycle from wrong side near Sariyani bridge and he fell down on the road and got serious multiple injury and was taken to Lodhan Hospital, there from referred to Islampur hospital where the doctors declared him dead.
That stating aforesaid fact younger brother of the deceased, namely, Dyibendu Bhattacherjee lodged a written complaint before Goalpokher PS and case No:172/2020 dated 18.06.2020 U/s 279/304A of IPC was started and Police submits charge sheet.
That thereafter engaged Advocate Sujan Sundar Seal requested the O.P for disbursement of the compensation amount under compulsory PA cover Rs.15,00,000/- by letter dated 08.07.2020 sent through Post but in spite of receiving said letter on 03.08.2020 O.P keeps mum. Due to negligent act of O.P this complaint is filed praying for direction upon the O.P to pay Rs.15,00,000/-for compulsory PA cover, compensation of Rs.50,000/- as mental pain, agony & harassment and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
O.P contested the case by filing W.V stating that the rider of the motor cycle had no any valid and effective DL as on the date of alleged accident and thereby violated the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and policy conditions. That the complainant has not informed subject to the said incident to the O.P concern within stipulated time as per terms and condition as stated in the policy schedule and did not submit any claim to the O.P/Insurance Company. As the complainant has breached the terms and conditions of the policy the complainant is not entitled to get any benefit & the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
P o i n t s f o r d e c i s i o n
- Whether there was any negligent act on the part of O.P which gives rise cause of action of this complaint?
- Is the petitioner entitled to get relief(s) as prayed for?
D e c i s i o n s w i t h r e a s o n
Admittedly, Dilip Bhattacharjee was the owner of Bajaj Pulsar Motor cycle bearing No:BR37B4098, Engine No:JEGBSK10749, Chassis No:MD2JDJDZZSCK10727, duly insured with O.P/Insurance Company vide Policy No:OG-20-2404-1802-00021206 valid from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 midnight, with compulsory PA cover (owner/ driver) amounting Rs.15,00,000/-.
It is not disputed that on 16.06.2020 Dilip Bhattacherjee was driving his said motor cycle and at about 01:15 PM one four wheeler which was coming from Lodhan side towards Kishanganj in opposite direction did head on collision with the motor cycle near Sariyani Bridge and Dilip Babu fell down on the road and got serious multiple injury and was taken to Lodhan Hospital, there from referred to Islampur Hospital, where the doctors declared him dead.
It is also not disputed that stating aforesaid fact younger brother of the deceased, namely, Dibyendu Bhattacherjee lodged a written complaint before Local P.S and Goalpokhar P.S case No:172/2020 dated 18.06.2020 U/s 279/304A of IPC was registered, vide GR 1608/20 and Police submits Charge Sheet/Final Report No:-83/21 dated 30.04.2021 under those sections against Faizuddin.
One of the objection of the O.P is that the rider of the motor cycle had no valid and effective DL as on the date of alleged accident. Xerox copy of DL in name of deceased Dilip Bhattacherjee is produced by the complainant vide License No:WB60-53396 issued on 14.05.2010 valid up to 13.05.2022. So this objection of the O.P stands overruled.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant referred a citation of N.C.D.R.C, Chandigarh in RE:Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd Vs Sukdev Kaur reported in 2022 Lawsuit (CO) 647 this judgment will not help the complainant as it effected repudiation on the sole ground that the driver who was driving the vehicle was not in a possession of driving license. We reiterate that the deceased rider of the motor cycle was in possession of valid & effective driving license on the date of accident.
Another objection of O.P is that as per Section 158(6) of M.V.Act, 1988 it is mandatory duty of the concerned Police Station to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of information but Goalpokhar P.S failed to forward the documents and not complied with the statutory provision.
Ld. Advocate for the O.P/Insurance Company argued that no claim has been submitted to O.P/Insurance Company till issuance of Advocate’s letter dated 08.07.2020.
Complainants i.e legal heirs of deceased Dilip Bhattacherjee did not say that any claim was submitted to O.P/Insurance Company, rather they tried to establish their claim basing upon the Advocate’s letter dated 08.07.2020, after expiry of statutory period of giving information as to the accident and submission of documents in regard to that accident in order to process the claim settlement.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant referred citation in RE:Jaina Construction Company Vs Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd & Anr reported in 2022 Lawsuit (SC) 167. This judgment relates to a Commercial Vehicle Package policy and there was a delay of about 05 months on the part of the complainant in informing and lodging its claim before the Insurance Company. This case Law is not applicable in this case as it relates to Two Wheeler Package Policy and though F.I.R was lodged to the local P.S but the complainant did not lodge claim to the Insurance Company at any point of time but opted to sustain her claim basing upon Advocate’s letter dated 08.07.2020.
He referred another judgment of the Supreme Court of India in RE: Cognigance for extension of limitation reported in 2022 Lawsuit (SC) 35 relates to Arbitration and Conciliation Act, N.I.Act, Commercial Course Act which has no bearing in a consumer complaint case.
Under above facts and discussion, we are of the opinion that Advocate’s notice did not and cannot comply the statutory provision of M.V.Act with regard to information & raising claim in time and as the complainant has breached the terms & conditions of the policy they are not entitled to get any benefit in respect of the said policy. Consequently we find no negligent act on the part of the O.P/Insurance Company.
In the result the claim fails. Hence, it is,
O R D E R E D
that the C.C No-34/21 be and the same is dismissed on contest against O.Ps but without any cost.
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
