West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/18/2016

Subhajit Ghorai - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Debra, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.Subhajit Singha.

03 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

and

Kapot Kumar Chattopadhyay

   

Complaint Case No.18/2016

 

Subhajit Ghorai S/o-Late Ranjit Ghorai at Vill-Haripath,

P.O.-Debra Bazar, P.S.-Debra,

Dist-Paschim Medinipur…..….………Complainant

Versus

Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Debra Branch,

Vill-Haripath, P.O.-Debra Bazar, P.S.-Debra,

Dist-Paschim Medinipur

and

United India Insurance Company Ltd., 24, Whites Road, Channai-600014………....…Opposite. Parties.

 

 For the Complainant:  Mr. Subhajit Singha,  Advocate.

 For the O.P.              :  Mr. Ashok Palodhi, Advocate.     

 

Decided on: -03/03/2017

                                

ORDER

                         Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member :– The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that the complainant is a valid insurance policy holder of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and it was a personal car policy of the complainant and the policy was valid till 10/06/2016 and the insured declared value was Rs.6,00,000/-(Six lakh) only. The complainant states that on 15/06/2015 at about 04:30 p.m. when the complainant was returning home from Kolkata to Debra the said vehicle met an accident

Contd………..P/2

                                         

                                               ( 2 )

 but no one sustained bleeding injury and the traffic police and the local people rescued the complainant and the said vehicle was kept at the nearly garage. The complainant states that on the same day he informed the policy issuing Branch Manager over phone and on the next day the complainant and his driver lodged a general diary and after enquiry the police handed over the vehicle to the complainant on 16/06/2015 and on the same day the Insurance Company appointed surveyor and the surveyor made the spot survey. The complainant states that he made an application before the O.P.-Insurance Company. Thereafter the complainant took the vehicle to Mukesh Hyundai at Gouripore, Kolkata for servicing. The complainant further states that after servicing, the service center handed over the vehicle to the complainant and the complainant paid Rs. 3,88,581/- for servicing charge  to the servicing centre at the time of taking vehicle. The complainant states that the complainant submitted the claim form before the O.P. Branch Office at Debra Branch along with necessary documents. Thereafter the complainant visited several times at Debra and Divisional office at Battala at Midnapore according to the direction of the O.P. officials. The complainant states that he is a Govt. employee and he   had to visit the O.Ps. office by taking leave. The complainant further states that the O.P.-Insurance Company, debra branch, Manager informed to the complainant that the complainant is not eligible to get any insurance benefit for his vehicle without any reason. Thereafter the complainant requested the O.P.-Company by a letter dated 03/12/2015. But having received that letter the O.P.-Company neither gave any reply nor provide any  insurance amount to the complainant. Having no other way the complainant had come before the Ld. Forum for redress. The complainant disputed that as there is gross negligence on the part of the O.P.-Insurance Company. The complainant therefore suffered he and damage and also prays for reliefs before the Ld. Forum.

            The O.P.-Insurance Company contested the case made against the  O.P.-Insurance Company by filing written objection challenging that the complainant case is not maintainable and it is barred by limitation under consumer protection Act and Rules.  The O.P.-Insurance Company denied all the allegation made in complainant petition.  The O.P.-Insurance Company admitted the fact mentioned in para 4 of the written objection. The O.P.-Insurance Company denied  the statement made in para 3,5,6,7 and 8 of the complainant petition made by the complainant.  The O.P.-Insurance Company argued and denied that the allegation made in para 10 and 11 of the complainant petition and argued that the petition of complainant made by the complainant are all false and without jurisdiction and the O.P.-Insurance Company beg

Contd………..P/3

                                        

                                             ( 3 )

 to state that the involved vehicle insured with the O.P.-Insurance Company with certain terms and condition. The O.P.-Insurance Company also denied the receipt of servicing centre. Ld. Advocate for  the O.P.-Insurance Company prays before the Forum that the complainant is not eligible to get any insurance benefit for his said vehicle and prays for dismissed the case with cost.

Upon the case of the parties the following issues are framed

1)Whether the case is maintainable in its present form ?

2)Whether there is deficiency of service ?

3)Whether the complainant has any cause of action for seeking relief as prayed for.

Decisions with reasons.

  Issues 1 to 3.

  All the issues are taken up for discussion. Ld. Advocate as those are interlinked to each other for the purpose of  arriving  at a correct decision in the dispute. Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument and he filed affidavit-in-chief along with some document in original which has been exhibited at the time of evidence and the complainant has been cross-examined by the O.P.  But the Ld. Advocate for the O.P.-Insurance Company did not submit any sort of evidence or documents in support of his case. It is shown in the record that the O.P.-Insurance Company has taken several adjournment for filing written objection.  It is also shown in the record  that  cost was also imposed.  We find that a petition was filed jointly by the parties for compromise.  But no effect Ld. Advocate for the O.P.-Insurance Company prays time before the Ld. Court for evidence of the O.P. by way of affidavit but thereafter the next date Ld. Advocate for the O.P. prays that the O.P. will not adduce any evidence and the date was fixed for argument.

     Regarding the allegation of the complainant that the complainant is a valid Insurance policy holder and the policy was package policy vide No.035081/31/15/01000031 for his personal car bearing No.WB26S1616 and the said policy is valid till 10/06/2016 and the road accident was occurred on 15/6/2015. Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant has performed all necessary steps within time and he prays for refund of Rs.3,88,581/- paid to the O.P. for the purchase of said insurance policy alongwith recovery charge of Rs.3,500/-. Having received the notice of the complainant the O.P.-Insurance Company did not reply and also did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.  So, there is a gross deficiency on the part of the O.P.-Insurance Company.

Contd………..P/4

                                          

                                                                               ( 4 )

            Ld. Lawyer for the complainant also argued that the said case is maintainable.  As the cause of action arose on 15/06/2015 within the jurisdiction of this Forum.

           Ld Lawyer for the complainant disputed that as there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.-Insurance Company and the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.  

           Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. argued the case is not maintainable and it is barred by limitation.  Ld. Lawyer also argued that the involved vehicle is insured with the O.P.-Insurance Company with certain terms and condition.  He also argued that the O.P. parties enquired about the accident after they got information and found that the vehicle was slightly damaged. They also deny the receipt of servicing centre against the repairment of damaged vehicle and argued that all are false and fabricated. As  such the complainant is not eligible to get any insurance benefit for his said vehicle.  So it can not be said that there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.-Insurance Company.

         In view of the facts and circumstances we find that the O.P.-Insurance Company was failed to establish their prays. No where it is found that O.P.-Insurance Company have tried to establish their case and challenged the case.

         It the stage of argument the Ld. Lawyer for the O.P.-Insurance Company has failed to argue in support of this written objection.  So we find that there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. Therefore prays made by the complainant can be granted in his favour.    

                                       Hence,

                                                     it is,

ORDERED

                                                                   that the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest with cost against the O.P.

                The O.P. is hereby directed to refund  Rs.3,88,581/- for the purchase of the said insurance policy alongwith recovery van charge.

                O.P. is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- for harassment mental pain and agony within 60 days from the date of this order.

               Let plain copy of order be given to the party free of cost.

                Dictated and Corrected by me

                   .

                  Member                           Member                                        President

                                                                                                          District Forum

                                                                                                       Paschim Medinipur