C.F. CASE No. : CC/09/12
COMPLAINANT : Sri Rabindranath Biswas
S/o Late Subodh Kr. Biswas
Vill. Chowgacha
P.O. + P.S. Krishnaganj
Dist. Nadia (under G.P.)
OPPOSITE PARTY/OP : Branch Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
M.M. Ghosh Street,
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,
Dist. Nadia.
PRESENT : KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY MEMBER
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 10th May, 2010
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is the owner of a bus No. WB 51–3759 which is insured by the OP National Insurance Co. Ltd., Krishnagar Branch vide policy No. 15400/31/07/6300004629 and the said insurance was valid from 28.10.07 to 27.10.08. It is his further case that the said bus fell in an accident on 10.05.08 at which it was heavily damaged. Regarding this accident a police case No. 123/08 U/S 299, 338 IPC was started. This accident caused a loss of Rs. 2,00,000/- for repairing, maintenance charges and other expenses. The petitioner submitted bill voucher and estimate paper before the OP Insurance Co. observing all formalities, but the OP did not settle his claim. So having no other alternative he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
The OP National Insurance Co. Ltd. has contested this case by filing a written version, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form and nature. It is his submission that the vehicle No. WB 51–3759 was insured with the OP for the period from 28.10.07 to 27.10.08 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. He also submits that the petitioner, Rabindranath Biswas filed a claim before the OP alleging that the vehicle met with an accident on 10.05.08 and the amount claimed was Rs. 2,10,000/-. This OP asked the complainant to submit the required document like route permit, but he did not submit the same though it is necessary for settlement of the claim. This OP came to learn that at the time of accident the said vehicle was plying for a special purpose and not for original purpose as mentioned in the permit. So special permit is required which is not filed by the complainant to consider his claim. He also learnt that the petitioner did not obtain any special permit in respect of the vehicle when it caused an accident. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of this OP for not settling the claim of the complainant. Hence, the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Is the case maintainable in its present form and nature?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of the complaint along with annexed documents and the written version filed by the OP and after hearing the submission of the ld. lawyers for the parties it is available on record that this complainant is the owner of the vehicle No. WB 51–3759. It is also established that the vehicle was insured with the OP Insurance Co. for the period from 28.10.07 to 27.10.08. From the documents filed by the complainant it is available that he submitted the claim application along with the other documents before the OP, but the OP did not settle his claim. Regarding the accident there is no challenge on the side of the OP. From the documents it is also available that the bus fell in an accident on 10.05.08 within Bagdah P.S., Dist. 24th Parganas (North). Due to this accident a police case No. 123/08 U/S 299, 338 IPC was started. The F.I.R. was lodged by one Tapan Kumer Dey on the side of the complainant. Two PWs are examined who have supported the case of the complainant. From the reply of the PW-1, it is available that he submitted all the documents before the OP for settling his claim. Admittedly this OP has not settled his claim. At the time of argument ld. lawyer for the OP agitated as well as in the written version that the bus caused an accident at Bagdah P.S. outside this district when it was plying with a special permit. This special permit is filed by the complainant which is marked as 'Annexure – 1’. From this annexure, we find that it is issued by the Secretary, RTA Nadia on 15.05.08 and the said permit was valid from 09.05.08 to 15.05.08. Ld. lawyer for the OP agitates that this special permit is not a valid document in the eye of law as it was issued on 15.05.08 which is the expiry date of the permit. The permit is proved by OPW-2, one Santi Ranjan Halder. He has proved this special permit which was issued by the Secretary, RTA Nadia. So considering this we find that admittedly this special permit was issued by the Secretary, RTA Nadia on 05.05.08 and the said permit was valid for the period from 09.05.08 to 15.05.08 and the accident was caused on 10.05.08. Ld. lawyer for the OP has challenged this document though at his instance this documents is produced by the OPW-2. But at the same time he has not filed any other cogent document to prove that the special permit cannot be issued from the RTA office, Nadia. Considering this we hold that as it is a government document, so it is a valid one. Regarding repairing of the bus complainant has filed a document issued by one Shankar Body Builders which shows that the complainant spent Rs. 1,72,914/- for repairing the said vehicle. On the side of the OP no inspection report or any other document is filed to disprove the claim of the complainant. No survey report is also filed by the OP. So we have no other alternative, but to accept this estimate for expenditure filed by the complainant.
Therefore, in view of our above discussions we find that it is established on record that the complainant is the original owner of the vehicle No. WB 52–3759. It is also established that the vehicle fell in an accident on 10.05.08 for which a police case was started and at that time it was plying with a special permit which was issued by the Secretary, RTA Nadia. The complainant spent Rs. 1,72,914/- for repairing of the damaged bus. He duly submitted all the papers available to him for settling the claim, but the complainant did not settle his claim which we hold as a deficiency in service on the part of the OP. So our considered view is that as the complainant has become able to prove his case, so he is entitled to get the relief as prayed for. In result the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/09/12 be and the same is decreed on contest against the OP. The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 1,72,000/- as compensation + Rs. 3,000/- for mental harassment and sufferings caused to him + Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost. The OP is directed to make payment of the decretal dues amounting to Rs. 1,77,000/- to this complainant within a period of one month since this date of passing this judgment, in default, the decretal amount will accrue interest @ 9% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
