DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 94 of 2016

 

      1. Sri Bhulu Datta,

S/O- Lt. Manindra Datta,

 

      2. Smt. Prativa Datta,

W/O- Sri Bhulu Datta,

 

Residents of 

Ananganagar, P.O.- Bimanghar,

P.S. Airport, West Tripura. ....…..…...Complainant.

 

             VERSUS

 

     

      1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Represented by its Branch Manager,

Branch Office- Sreeji tower, 3rd floor,

C/O- Guwahati Tea Ware Housing Pvt. Ltd.,

Adjacent to Mahindra Show Room, 

Christian Basti, Guwahati- 781005(Assam).

 

      2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.,

G.E. Plaza, Airport road, Yerwada,

Pune- 411 006(India). .........Opposite parties.

 

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C  O  U  N  S  E  L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Kanu Lal Pal,

 Sri Krishnapada Bhowmik,

 Advocates.

 

For the O.Ps : Sri Karnajit De,

 Advocates.

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   03.07.2017.

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T

This case arises on the petition filed by one Bhulu Datta U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

2. Petitioner's case in short is that on 2014 his son  purchased one auto and he used to carry passengers for self employment. On 24.06.15 the son of petitioner while plying the vehicle at Lichubagan near Army Canteen met with accident. Sahadev Datta got serious injuries due to the said accident. He was taken to Agartala Medical college and GBP Hospital and he ultimately died by the accident. The vehicle was insured with the Bajaj Allianz Insurance company up to 29th June 2015. Petitioner being legal heir claimed the insured amount but his claim was denied. So he filed this case before this Forum for the insured amount and compensation for deficiency of service.

3. O.P. appeared and filed W.S denying the claim. It is stated that owner driver of the vehicle drove it without permit at the time of accident. The Motor vehicle Act rules was violated so, petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation.

 

4. On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination:

(I) Whether the petitioner was entitled to get the policy benefit  and the same was denied by O.P.?

(II) Whether the petitioner was entitled to get any compensation for deficiency of service of O.P.? 

5. Petitioner side produced photocopy of FIR, Death Certificate, Postmortem Report, survival certificate, certificate of registration, insured certificate, driving license, road permit, tax token, school certificate of the deceased, letter. 

6. Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of one witness i.e., the complainant of the case. 

7. O.P. on the other hand produced certificate of Insurance Policy, Survey Report, verified copy of Permit, Repudiation letter, certified copy of letter to the insured, original permit, Exhibit- A Series.

8. O.P. also produced the statement on affidavit of one witness, Odyssey Bordoloi.

9. On the basis of the evidence we shall now determine above points.

Findings:

10. We have also heard the argument of both side. 

Firstly, we have gone through the policy certificate. For the coverage of owner driver liability of the company was Rs.2 lacs. Policy holder insured name was Sahadev Datta. The vehicle was registered on 9th July 2014. Owner name was Sahadev Datta who died by the motor accident. Death certificate of Sahadev Datta is produced along with the post mortem report. Driving license of Sahadev Datta was also produced along with registration certificate, insurance policy certificate, road permit, tax token etc.

We have gone through the Motor Survey Report as produced by the Bajaj Allianz. Date of survey was 24.07.15.

11. We have gone through the repudiation letter issued by Bajaj Allianz company dated 04.09.15 it is written that the insured vehicle was driven in the public place without any Road permit. So, Motor Vehicle Act & rules was violated. On this ground the claim was repudiated.

12. It is admitted position that the accident occurred in the public place. The vehicle was registered and it was driven by the person Sahadev Datta deceased having driving license. Only fault found by the Bajaj Allianz Insurance company is that the vehicle had no road permit  at the time of accident. Permit issued on 14.07.14 date of expiry was 14.11.14. But date of accident was 24.06.15.

13. Learned advocate of for the O.P. referred the decision of Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition 308 of 2016. In that case Hon'ble National Commission held that plying a vehicle without the requisite permit can not be said merely to be a breach condition of the policy including limitations to its use. Use of vehicle without permit will be in violation of section 66 of the M.V Act.

14. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in case of an accident of a vehicle, when insured, uses the vehicle contrary to conditions under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicle Act or when the driver is holding improper driving license contrary to requirement U/S 3 of the M.V Act Claim ought to be settled on non-standard basis rather then outright repudiation of policy and rejection of the claim. So, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court the claim could have been settled on non-standard basis i.e., 75% of claim Rs.2 lacs (Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) 2014 SLT 464 IV (2014) CPJ 11 (SC). 

 

15. In this case deceased driver was holding proper license. The vehicle was driven with proper registration which met the accident. As per decision of the Supreme Court outright repudiation of the claim and rejection of the claim was not proper. We are of the considered view for the complainant could have been reimbursed on non-standard basis. But it was not done by the Bajaj Allianz company. This  we consider is deficiency of service. We therefore, direct Bajaj Allianz Insurance company to pay Rs.10,000/- for deficiency of service and settle the claim on non-Standard basis i.e, 75% of sum assured. Both the points are decided accordingly. 

 

16. In view of our above findings over the point we direct Insurance Company to pay the amount of Rs.10,000/- for deficiency of service and decide the claim on Non-standard Basis i.e., 75% of sum assured. We direct the O.Ps to pay the amount within one month, if not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.  

 

Announced.

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.