Tripura

West Tripura

CC/2/2017

Sri Ajit Shil. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chairman, National Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.K.Nandi.

16 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC-  02   of  2017

Sri Ajit Shil,
S/O- Sri Haripada Shil,
Maharani, P.S. R.K. Pur,
Udaipur, Gomati Tripura.        ..........Complainant.

             ___VERSUS___

1. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Registered office at
3, Middleton Street, Post Box No. 9229,
Kolkata- 700 071,
Through its Chairman.

2. The Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Agartala Division, Agartala,
42, Akhaura Road, Agartala,
Tripura West.              ...........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 Kajal Nandi,
                        Advocate.

For the O.P. No. 3 & 4        : Sri Joydeep Paul,
                       Advocate.
                                              
        
        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 16.03.2017

J U D G M E N T
        This case arises on the petition filed by one Ajit Shil U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that he purchased one JCB 3DX-2WD Excavator on payment of Rs.24,06,000/- being financed by Shriram Transport. The excavator was insured with the National Insurance Company O.P. for a period from 07.11.15 to 06.11.16. Total premium Rs.21,237/- was paid. On 14.03.16 during the policy period at about 11 A.M.  while working at Rajaram para under Taidu police station the excavator was badly damaged and the inspector examined the same. Alamin Miya was the driver. The repairing was necessary so the complainant informed the insurance company and claimed the reimbursement of the repairing cost. As per advice of the Insurance company thereafter the excavator was repaired after spending Rs.4,01,358/-. Complainant submitted the invoice/vouchers showing the expenditure Rs.4,01,351/- for reimbursement. But on 16.08.16 the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company, O.P. No.2 informed the complainant that the claim is repudiated due to non production of Route Permit. But Route permit is not essential condition of insurance. This excavator did not carry any passenger or goods but for no valid reasons the claim was repudiated. Due to deficiency of insurance company petitioner suffered loss per day Rs.3,000/- and also repairing cost Rs.4,01,358/-. He suffered mental agony, prayed for compensation total amounting to Rs.10 lacs. 

2.        O.P. after receipt of notice did not appear. No written statement filed. Thereafter national Insurance company appeared and filed the written statement. National Insurance  company  denied that it asked the complainant for repairing. But admitted that the claim was repudiated for non production of the permit. Without permit of the vehicle the vehicle can not be plied in the road. Section 39 of the M.V Act was violated. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to get reimbursement. 

3.        On the basis of contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination.
        (I) Whether the petitioner's claim was justly repudiated by the Insurance company?
        (II)Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for deficiency of service by the O.P.?

Petitioner produced the retail invoice, registration certificate of the vehicle, tax token of the JCB, Insurance Policy, image of accident of JCB Excavator, money receipt, copy of examination report of MVI, copy of claim intimation letter to Insurance company, copy of G.D. Entry, Legal notice and thereafter produced the Driving License of driver of the vehicle.

5.        Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of  Ajit Shil. 
6.        O.P. produced no evidence. Only cross-examined the the P.W.
We have heard the argument of both side and proceed to decide the case.

                Findings and decision:
8.        Ajit Shil, the complainant of the case stated that he purchased the JCB excavator for Rs.24,06,000/-. It was duly insured with the National Insurance Company. He produced the policy certificate and it is also admitted by the O.P. that the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance company. The fact of accident is informed to the O/C, Taidu P.S. It was informed that the excavator fell inside a lunga & damaged. This information was received and copy of FIR is filed. So fact of accidental damage is established. The claim intimation letter also produced. It appears that claim intimation letter was produced before the Insurance Company on 16th March, 2016 informing the accident on 14.03.16 during the policy the coverage period. We have gone through the policy certificate and found that policy was covered the period from 07.11.15 to 06.11.16. Own damage is covered with the exclusion  of item no. IMT 21. Premium was Rs.15,799/- for own damage. And with other liability total premium is Rs.21,237/-. This fact also not denied by O.P. Only contention raised by the O.P. is that the vehicle had no Route Permit. In the policy certificate there is nothing to support that Route permit was essential condition for satisfaction of claim. The vehicle was driven by the driver of the vehicle having driving license for heavy vehicle. No prescribed route is given for the excavator. It is meant for excavating only not for carrying passengers and goods. Generally in commercial vehicle running with passengers and goods definite route is prescribed  by the transport authority. But for excavator there is no prescribed route. Nothing before us to support that for excavator road permit is necessary and it was commercial vehicle. When the road permit is not at all necessary then repudiation of the claim for want of route permit was unfair. This rejection of claim by the insurance company in our view is deficiency of service. Insurance company could appoint surveyor to assess the damage. But it was not done. Petitioner also failed to produce any communication of the insurance company to support that on the advice of the insurance company the vehicle was repaired by Podder & Podder Equipment & Project Ltd. Invoice was produced before the insurance company on 03.06.16. But the invoices were not produced before us. What parts of the JCB excavator was damaged not clearly proved. Petitioner also produced no surveyor report to support the total damage. The inspector of motor Vehicle on inspection found that hydraulic stick, door glass, backhoe, boom etc. was found with accidental damage. Alamin Miya was the driver and his original driving license is produced. Petitioner claimed for repairing Rs.4,01358/- was spent. O.P. denied it and vouchers not produced. In such a position we can not assess the damage without specific evidence. It is true that coverage was for 27 lacs. for own damage. But unless the extent of damage is proved by specific evidence we can not give any compensation for damage.  However, we direct to pay 50% of the claimed amount Rs.4,01,358/- i.e., Rs.2,00,500/- for the cost of damage. Petitioner suffered for the deficiency of service of the O.P. for no justified reasons the claim was repudiated. Therefore for the deficiency of service petitioner is entitled to get Rs.1 lac compensation. Petitioner is also entitled to get Rs.5000/- for litigation cost. In total petitioner is entitled to get Rs.3,05,500/-. Both the points are decided accordingly.

9.        In view of our above findings over the two points the petition is partly allowed. We direct the National Insurance company to pay Rs.3,05,500/- to the complainant within 1(one) month if not paid it is 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.