West Bengal

Bankura

CC/12/2023

Mr. Nandalal Ghosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chairman & Managing Director, ICCI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

PranabKumar Pal

11 Dec 2023

ORDER

IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA

  Consumer Complaint No. 12/2023

          Date of Filing: 30-01-2023

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                            Ld. President.      

2. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui            Ld. Member.                            

 

For the Complainant:  Ld. Advocate Amitabha Chatterjee / Advocate Pranab Ch. Pal

For the O.P.: Ld. Advocate Prabir Banerjee

                                                                                                                                                                   

Complainant

Mr. Nandalal Ghosh Since deceased, substituted by Chandana Ghosh (Wife) & Pintu Ghosh (Son), Mejhia, Dist.- Bankura, Pin- 722143

Opposite Party                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

1.Chairman & Managing Director, ICCI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Interface Bldg No. 16, 6^th Floor, Mumbai-400064, Maharastra, India

Registered Address: ICCI Lombard House.414, P.Balu Marg, Off Veer Sawarkar Marg., Near Siddhivinayak Temple, Prabhadevi. Mumbai-400025, Maharastra, India

Local Address: Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Ground Floor, City Residency, Shahid Khudiram Sarani, City Center, Durgapur, Paschim Bardhaman, West Bengal 713216

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT  

Order No.10

Dated:11-12-2023

Both parties file hazira through advocate.

The case is fixed for argument.

After hearing argument/written argument from both sides the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder: -

The Complainant’s case is that the original Complainant since deceased was the registered owner of the private vehicle (Omnibus) Registration No. being WB68Z7920 duly insured with O.P./Insurance Co. valid from 29/10/2021 to 28/10/2022 Policy No. being 3001/NI-16574959. On 13/10/2022 at about 3 a.m. the said vehicle met with a road accident on the way from Mejia to Bankura being driven by the authorized driver Ramesh Banerjee to see his ailing grandmother in which the vehicle was badly damaged which was repaired and serviced at the cost of the Complainant. The incident was diarised with Gangajal Ghati P.S. GDE No. being 594, dt.14/10/2022 and also reported to the O.P./Insurance Co. in due time accompanied by claim application. But the claim was repudiated as the vehicle was hired/rewarded for personal use of said authorized driver. Hence this case.

O.P./Insurance Co. contested the case by filing a written version contending inter alia that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case as there has been fundamental breach of the terms and condition of the Policy for using the private car on hire and reward.

                                                                                                                                                                                          Contd……p/2

                                                                                                  Page: 2

                                                                               -: Decision with reasons: -

Having regard to the facts of the case, submission, contention and documents on both sides the Commission finds that earlier before the repudiation of the claim the O.P./Insurance Co. approved the claim of the Complainant for Rs.2,68,665/- out of which Rs.1,29,225/- will be collected by the workshop at the time of delivery of the vehicle and this was intimated to the Complainant by the O.P./Insurance Co. via email message dt.22/12/2022 but thereafter O.P./Insurance Co. sent the repudiation letter dated:27/12/2022.

Ld. Advocate for the O.P./Insurance Co. has vehemently submitted before the Commission by referring to the statement of the Insured Nandalal Ghosh and that of authorized driver Ramesh Banerjee where both of them admitted regarding the use of the private vehicle on hire/reward and as such the Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation for the damaged vehicle for such fundamental breach of the Policy.

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has however placed reliance on the email message of the Insurance Co. which is on record where the claim amount of Rs.2,68,665/- has already been approved by the Insurance Co. and as such the O.P./Insurance co. cannot retract from their earlier stand and repudiate the claim of the Complainant.

It is therefore evident that the O.P./Insurance Co. went ahead with the settlement of claim and approved the same in due process of law. Once such approval is intimated to the Complainant it is full and final settlement by and between the parties. At this stage the O.P./Insurance Co. cannot review its decision without hearing the Insured. Subsequent repudiation by the O.P./Insurance Co. is not desirable and permissible under the Insurance law and it amounts to deficiency in service.

                                                                                                                                                                                              Contd……p/3

                                                                                                  Page: 3

The Commission has no authority and jurisdiction to unsettle a settled claim by the competent authority in due process of law by taking a different view.

Considering the above factual and legal aspect of the case the Commission fixes the liability of the O.P./Insurance Co. to pay compensation at Rs. 2,68,665/- to the Complainant for the damaged vehicle.

Hence it is ordered……..

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest but without cost.

O.P. No.1/Insurance Co. is directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.2,68,665/- as compensation for the damaged vehicle within one month from this date in default the law will take its own course.

Both parties be supplied copy of this order free of cost.

 ____________________                _________________         

HON’BLE   PRESIDENT          HON’BLE MEMBER