West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/128/2016

Md Mehedi Hasan, S/O Lt Abdul Kalam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Br. Manager, ICICI Lombard Gen INS Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Kr Acharya

27 Jun 2018

ORDER

Shri Biswa Nath Konar, President.

            The case of the complainant Md. Mehedi Hasan, in brief, is that he is the owner of a vehicle being registration No. WB45/1892. That the said vehicle was covered with insurance under the O.P being policy No. 0033/TM-00353045/00/000, ID of Rs. 3,98,525/- valid from 28.12.2015 to 27.12.2016.

            It is the further case of the complainant that on 23.05.2016 the vehicle in question was being taken to Rampurhat to fix registration number. But unfortunately on the way the driver of the vehicle lost its control and dashed with a tree and in consequence of the same the vehicle was damaged severally. Immediate after the incident the complainant inform the O.P Insurance Co. and Rampurhat PS verbally and thereafter in writing.

            It is the further case of the complainant that thereafter Surveyor of the O.P Insurance Co. examine the vehicle and asked the complainant to submit the claim form and estimate cost of the repair of the vehicle. That as per instruction of the O.P the vehicle was brought before M/s. Gati Motors Pvt. Ltd, Authorized service centre of the Tata Motors and after examination of the vehicle M/s. Gati Motors issued an estimate cost of repair of the vehicle at Rs. 301261/-.

            It is the further case of the complainant that he submitted claim application along with relevant documents including estimate cost. But the complainant could not get repair of the vehicle due to shortage of fund. He requested the O.P on several occasion to settle the claim but they refused.

            Act of the O.P Insurance Co. is nothing but deficiency in service and illegal trade practice.

            Hence this case for directing the O.P to pay Rs. 301261/- as Insurance Claim of the damaged vehicle with 12% interest p.a. since 23.05.2016 and for further directing the O.P to pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation for damage, mental agony and harassment.

            The O.P ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. has appeared in this case by filing by Vokalatnama and praying for time for filing W.V. But thereafter they backed out from the case.

Ultimately the case was heard ex parte against the O.P.

Point for determination.

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.?
2. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

During the trial the complainant Md. Mehedi Hassan has examined himself as P.W.1 and files some documents.

Argument of the Ld. Advocate/Agent of the complainant has been heard.

Point No.1:: Evidently the complainant insured his vehicle with the O.P by paying premium for the period 28.12.2015 to 27.012.2016.

So, the complainant is consumer u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P. Act.

Point No.2:- O.P ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. has Branch Office at Suri within jurisdiction of this Forum.

The total valuation of the case is Rs. 411261/- which is far less than maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum i.e. Rs. 20,00,000/-. So, this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.

Point No. 3 and 4:- Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion as they are related to each other.

            The complainant in his complaint and evidence stated that he is the owner of a vehicle being registration No. WB45/1892. That the said vehicle was covered with insurance under the O.P being policy No. 0033/TM-00353045/00/000, ID of Rs. 3,98,525/- valid from 28.12.2015 to 27.12.2016.

            Original delivery challan issued by M/s. Gati Motors Pvt. Ltd. shows that the complainant got delivery of the vehicle in question.

            Original registration issued by registering Authority Rampurhat shows that the vehicle in question being No. WB 45/1892 has been duly registered in the name of the complainant.

            Original insurance certificate issued by the O.P shows that vehicle in question was duly insured for the period 28.12.2015 to 27.12.2016.

            The complainant in his evidence further stated that on 23.05.2016 the vehicle in question was being taken to Rampurhat to fix registration number. But unfortunately on the way the driver of the vehicle lost its control and dashed with a tree and in consequence of the same the vehicle was damaged severally. Immediate after the incident the complainant informed the O.P Insurance Co. and Rampurhat PS verbally and thereafter in writing.

            Copy of the G.D shows that incident of the accident of the vehicle No. WB45/1892 was duly informed to the police and police entered Rampurhat G.D entry No. 1032 dated 27.05.2016.

            The complainant as PW1 further stated that he submitted claim application along with relevant documents including estimate cost. But the complainant could not get repair of the vehicle due to shortage of fund. He requested the O.P on several occasion to settle the claim but they refused. 

            Bill dated 19.08.2016 issued by M/s. Gati Motors Pvt. Shows that Rs. 301261/- was assessed as estimated cost for repairing of the damaged vehicle.

            We find that in the present case the O.P appeared but thereafter backed out from the case without contesting the case.

            We further find from the letter of repudiation dated 02.12.2016 issued by the O.P Insurance Co. that the claim of the complainant was repudiated only on the ground alleging that at the time of accident the vehicle was carrying more than the registered seating capacity in the vehicle by violating policy condition.

            We have already stated that the present case was heard ex parte and the O.P Insurance Co. has failed to produce any oral or document evidence in support of their case that at the relevant time the complainant was carrying more passengers than the registered seating capacity.

            We find that the complainant in his argument claim that O.P repudiated his claim arbitrarily as there is no document in as much as cogent evidence in support of their repudiation letter.

In view of the ruling reported in IV2006CPJ 2013(NC) wherein a complaint case the complainant filed an affidavit by way of evidence but the O.Ps neither filed any evidence by way of affidavit nor cross examined the deponent. Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that allegation of the complainant remained uncontroverted and in absence of any counter affidavit case of the complainant stands prove.

            Considering over all matter into consideration and materials on record and relying upon the unchallenged testimony of the complainant we are constrained to hold that the complainant has been able to prove his case that the O.P Insurance Co. illegally repudiated his claim.

            Thus these points are decided in favour of the complainant. Case succeeds in part.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that C.F case No. 128/2016 be and the same is allowed on ex parte against O.P in part with cost  of Rs. 2000/-.

The O.P ICICI Lombard Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to pay Rs. 3,01,261/- as insurance claim of the damaged vehicle with 6% interest P.A. since 23.05.2016 till realization and to pay Rs. 10000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. All such payments shall be made within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order as per law and procedure.

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.