Smt. Sahana Ahmed Basu, Member.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant, in short, is that the complainant company obtained an insurance policy for an yearly premium of Rs.37,720/- being policy No.3379/01352861/000/00 with the validity from 15/02/2016 to midnight of 14/02/2017 in respect of the Vehicle No.WB-11C-9362 having Engine No.E613CDGA063693. Chassis No.MC2K1MRC0GA046593, make- Eicher, Model-20.16. On 18/09/2016 the said vehicle met with an accident within the Golakganj P.S., Dhubri, Assam and a case was registered against the Driver of the said vehicle with the Golakganj P.S. vide Case No.768/16 dated 26/09/2016. A report was prepared by the Dist. Transport Officer, Dhubri against the Driver of the subject vehicle who had been driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The said vehicle was repaired at Allied Motorwheels Siliguri Pvt. Ltd. at Siliguri. They raised a bill for Rs.10,02,954/-. Accordingly, the complainant company submitted their claim vide Claim No.3379181943 but inadvertently mentioned the Driver’s name as Satendra Ray, S/O Ram Sogarth Ray instead of Mukesh Yadav and as such on 21/06/2017 the complainant company submitted their claim before the O.P. again by correcting the name of the Driver of the vehicle and made apology for the said clerical mistake along with all relevant details with the request to release their claim but on 17/07/2017 the O.P. rejected the claim on the ground that it was not mentioned in the claim form that said Mukhesh Yadav was driving the vehicle at the time of accident though the complainant company submitted the report of the D.T.O. of Dhubri, Assam wherein it was clearly mentioned that said Mukesh Yadav was actually driving the vehicle at the time of accident. In spite of submission of all required documents the O.P. did not pay any heed to release the legitimate claim of the complainant company. Hence, the complainant company has moved this Forum to get relief or reliefs.
The O.P. insurance company has contested the case by filing W.V. contending, inter alia, that the instant consumer complaint is not maintainable in its present form and in law. All the allegations which have been made in the petition of complaint are false and harassive. The complainant is not a consumer as defined in the C. P. Act, 1986. The case of the O.P. is that they issued one policy bearing No.3379/01352861000 valid from 15/02/2016 to 14/02/2017 in respect of vehicle No. WB-11C-9362. The complainant lodged their claim regarding repairing cost of the damaged vehicle after 02/03/2017. As per the policy condition No.-1, the complainant submitted their claim after an inordinate delay though in the said condition-1 it has clearly mentioned that a notice should be given immediately after the accident. The O.P. further submits that complainant submitted the name of the driver as Satendra Ray coupled with driving license no. and ADHAR Card and on verification the license was found fake. Being intimated the complainant company submitted the driver’s detail of Mukesh Yadav stating that they furnished wrong information in regard to the driver’s details and actually the name of accused driver is Mukesh Yadav instead of Satendra Ray. O.P. has also stated that when the insured realized that their claim cannot be settled, and then they furnished the purported letter dated 21/06/2017 and changed the driver’s name. The O.P. has further stated that they have repudiated the claim rightly and there is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence, they have prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
On pleadings of the parties the following points are come for determination.
- Whether the O.P. is deficient in rendering proper service.
- Whether the O.P. indulged unfair trade practice.
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief ?
Decision with Reasons
Points No.-1 to 3.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.
Both the parties have tendered evidence through affidavit and O.P. replied the questionnaire set forth by the complainant. But the complainant failed to reply against the questionnaire. Both the parties have filed BNAs. We have gone through the evidences as well as documents on record and gave a thoughtful consideration thereto.
It is admitted fact that the complainant company obtained a vehicle insurance policy from the O.P. by paying Rs.37,720/- as premium. The said policy was valid from 15/02/2016 to mid night of 14/02/2017. The subject vehicle met with an accident on 18/09/2016 within the territorial jurisdiction of Golakganj P.S. Dhubri, Assam for which the vehicle was badly damaged. A case was registered against the Driver of the subject vehicle at Golakganj P.S. being FIR No.768/16 dated 26/09/2016 u/s-279/338/337/427 of IPC. It is also admitted fact that the said vehicle was repaired at Allied Autowheels Siliguri Pvt. Ltd. Siliguri. A bill was raised for such repairing for Rs.10,02,954/- vide Invoice No.15JCRM/1617/00985 dated 02/03/2017. A report was prepared by the D.T.O. Dhubri against the Driver of the subject vehicle who had been driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The complainant company submitted their claim vide claim No.33791819423 to the O.P. on 02/03/2017, where inadvertently driver’s name was mentioned as Satendra Ray, S/o Ram Sogarh Ray coupled with his driving license, though after verification, the same was found fake by the O.P. as the attached report of the D.T.O., Ukhrul, Manipur, DL No.18015/UKL is not genuine.
On perusal of the record, we find that the claim was lodged on 02/03/2017. Before that on 29/11/2016 the O.P. gave reminder to the complainant to start repairing work of the subject vehicle after intimation information. Thereafter, the O.P. repudiated the claim vide letter dated 29/05/2017.
O.P. alleged that as per their terms and conditions “Notice shall be given in writing to the insurance company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident, loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require”. Ld. Advocate for the O.P. argued that there is huge delay in submitting the claim on the part of the complainant company. On the contrary, the evidence furnished by the O.P. goes to show that a letter dated 19/11/2016 without any signature of the authorized signatory of the insurance company had been served upon the complainant intimating to start the repair of the subject vehicle by mentioning therein that “We would like to inform that till date repairing of the vehicle has not started and already 56 days have passed from the date of claim intimation”. Therefore, it is crystal clear from the said letter that the complainant intimated the O.P. about the accident of the insured vehicle without any enormous delay. More so, it has been found from the invoice of the Allied Autowheels Siliguri Pvt. Ltd. that they raised invoice on 02/03/2017 for the repairing the subject vehicle and it can safely be presumed that after estimating the cost of repair, the complainant company had submitted their claim to the O.P. Thus, we do not find any negligence in performing their part of obligation on behalf of the complainant company. Thus, we cannot but to hold that O.P. fails to render proper service being the insurer to the subject vehicle.
Further case of the complainant company is that the complainant inadvertently wrote the name of the name of driver as Satendra Ray, S/O Ram Sogarth Ray, who was the Reliever / Khalasi of the subject vehicle instead of Mukesh Yadav, who was actually driving the subject vehicle at the time of the accident. The complainant company also submitted a fresh claim rectifying the name of driver. On perusal of the materials on record as well as the documents filed by the parties, we find that the complainant company is engaged in the business of transportation of goods and they have appointed many drivers to drive their vehicles and the subject accident took place in a different state. Therefore, such mistake in furnishing the actual name of the driver is not impossible or abnormal but when such mistake was detected, the complainant company had intimated in writing on 21/06/2017 to the O.P. that Mukesh Yadav was actually driving the subject vehicle at the time of accident and said Satendra Ray was the Reliever / Khalasi together with the report of the D.T.O. of Dhubri. Copy of the FIR and photocopy of the driving license of said Mukesh Yadav to maintain their claim. On the other hand, the O.P. repudiated the claim vide their letter dated 17/07/2017 on the ground that the claim is baseless, misinterpretation of material fact to make false claim and the claim is frivolous and fabricated one. Considering all such documents together with the submission and counter submission in this regard, it is clearly evident that the subject vehicle met with an accident for which the subject vehicle was damaged, which need to repair and as such repudiation of the claim of the complainant cannot be justified by taking the plea of mentioning incorrect name of the driver, though it was rectified by the complainant company. In our opinion, this gesture of the O.P. tantamount to unfair trade practice.
The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. has further contended that the present complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party as the complainant company did not implicate Allied Autowheels Siliguri Pvt. Ltd. as party to the instant consumer complaint. Be that as it may, considering the facts and circumstances of the instant complaint, we are of the view that it is not necessary to implicate Allied Autowheels Siliguri Pvt. Ltd. as party to the instant case to effective adjudication of the present consumer complaint . Thus, this argument has no leg to stand.
In the backdrop of the state of affairs, stated hereinabove, we are inclined to hold that the complainant company is able to prove their case and as such they are entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for. Thus, all the points answered in the affirmative.
In result, the case merit succeeds in part.
Hence,
Ordered
The complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only.
The O.P. is directed to pay Rs.10,02,954/- to the complainant company within 30 days along with litigation cost from the date of this order.
The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation for harassment being a company.
The O.P. is further directed to deposit Rs.10,000/- as penal cost for practicing unfair trade to this Forum within the stipulated period.
Liberty be given to the complainant to put the order in execution, if the OP transgresses to comply the order.
