West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/130/2017

Azad Mallick - Complainant(s)

Versus

Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Subrata Das

14 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

 Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Sagarika Sarkar, Member. 

and 

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member.

 

Complaint Case No.130/2017

 

             Azad Mallick, S/o Late Riajuddin Mallick, Vill. Konnagar, P.O. Ghatal, P.S. Ghatal,

             District - Paschim Medinipur.   

                                                                                                                    ………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

1. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 3. Middleton Street, Kolkata-700071,
2. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd, Ghatal Branch, Ghatal Business Center, Konnagar Ghatal, P.O. & P.S. Ghatal, District- Paschim Medinipur.

                                                                                                 .....……….….Opp. Parties.

                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Subrata Das, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mirza Md. Galib Chowdhury, Advocate.

                                                   

                                                    Date of Filing : 11/08/2017

Decided on: - 14/03/2018

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President –This consumer complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act has been filed by the complainant Azad Mallick against the O.P.-Insurance Company, named above, alleging deficiency in service on their part in repudiating the claim of insurance of the vehicle of the complainant.

              Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows:-

                The complainant is the owner of a Saloon Car CHEVROLET TRAVERA LS BS III being registration no.WB 36A-6983 and the said vehicle was duly insured with

Contd…………………..P/2

 

 

( 2 )

the O.P.-National Insurance Company Ltd. under policy no.156021311510000286 and the validity of the said policy was effecting from 15/07/2015 to 14/07/2016.  Complainant himself used to drive the vehicle having a valid driving licence in his name.  On the night of 27/04/2016 at about 11 p.m., while the complainant was coming from Panskura to Ghatal by driving his vehicle, then one truck which was running in front of the vehicle of the complainant suddenly stopped and the car of the complainant dashed the said truck causing massive damage to the vehicle of the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant intimated the said incident to the O.P.-Insurance Company and the O.P.-Insurance Company made an investigation into the matter through their investigator.  Thereafter the complainant repaired the vehicle at Priti Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd. and for such repairing, he had to incur Rs.3,48,551/- as repairing cost and Rs.50,000/- as travelling cost for repairing.  The complainant thereafter submitted a claim alongwith all documents before the O.P.-Insurance Company but they vide their letter dated 25/05/2017 repudiated the claim of the complainant on a false plea.  The complainant again served a lawyer’s notice on 13/06/2017 to the O.P.-Insurance Company but the O.P.-Insurance Company did not pay any heed.  It is stated that such repudiation amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.-Insurance Company.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the O.P.-Insurance Company to pay Rs.3,48,551/- to the complainant as cost of repairing of the vehicle in question and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.

                   O.P.-Insurance Company has contested this case by filling a written version.  

                   Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the O.P.-Insurance Company that the complainant did not lodge any written complaint before the police after the accident out of fear that after investigation by the police, his misdeed/wrong doing will be revealed.  In such circumstances, there is no clear picture of the nature of the alleged accident.  It is also stated by the O.P.-Insurance Company that the complainant produced no M.V.I. report to ascertain the reason and nature of so called accident.  According to the O.P., the complainant has not produced any fitness certificate of the vehicle as required u/s 56 of the M.V.Act.  It is further stated that the complainant was holding driving licence no.PL-6930(T) which is professional/transport licence which does not allow the complainant to drive the subject vehicle as per M.V. Act.  It is denied by the O.P. that there is any deficiency in service on their part in repudiating the claim of insurance.  Further according to the O.P., the complainant has no cause of action and with a view to suppress his own fault or latches, he is trying to drag the O.P. into unnecessary litigation and to get illegal gain.  O.P. therefore claims dismissal of the case with cost.

Contd…………………..P/3

 

 

                                                                                                 ( 3 )

             To prove his case, the complainant Azad Mallick has examined himself as PW-1 by tendering a written examination-in-chief and during his evidence, few documents were marked as exbt. 1 to 5 respectively.  On the other hand, O.Ps have examined one witness namely Sri Chanchal Biswas and during his evidence, one document namely Motor Final Report has been marked as exbt-A.

 

                                                                 Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?
2. Is the complainant a consumer of the O.P.-Insurance Company?
3. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.-Insurance Company?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?    

                   

Decision with reasons

           Point no.1:-

      Maintainability of this case has not been questioned by any of the parties at the time of final hearing of this case.  On perusal of the pleadings of the parties we do not find anything to hold that the case is not maintainable.

     This point is therefore decided in the affirmative and in favour of the complainant.                                           

            Point no.2:-

     Admittedly, the complainant insured his vehicle with the O.P.-Insurance Co. under a policy being no. 156021311510000286 and the said policy was valid from 15.07.2015 to 14.07.2016.  It is not denied and disputed that the alleged occurrence of accident of the vehicle took place within the said validity period of the policy in question for which the complainant submitted claim of insurance before the O.P.  It is thus held that the complainant is a consumer under the O.P.

                        This point is therefore decided in favour of the complainant.

Point no.3:-

   From the respective pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record it appears that admittedly after the accident of the vehicle in question, the complainant submitted claim of insurance before the O.P.-Insurance Co., who in turn repudiated the claim of insurance on the ground that at the material point of time i.e. on 27.4.2016 the vehicle was driven by the complainant Azad Mallick holding driving license which is a professional/transport license which does not allow Azad Mallick to drive the subject vehicle as per M.V. Act.  Said letter of repudiation and the driving license have been marked as Exbt. 1 & 2 respectively.  From this driving license of the complainant, it appears that the complainant was licensed to drive transport vehicle.  The vehicle in question was not a transport vehicle but it was a light

Contd…………………..P/4

 

( 4 )

motor vehicle.  It is the settled law that when a person possessing license to drive heavy motor vehicle  was driving light motor vehicle at the time of accident cannot be held to have not possessing a valid license and the Insurance Co. cannot repudiate the claim of insurance on that ground alone. In view of that, the O.P.-Insurance Co. was not justified in repudiating the claim of insurance and it is therefore held that the O.P.-Insurance Co. is guilty of deficiency of service in repudiating the claim of insurance of the complainant.

                           This point is therefore answered in favour of the complainant.

Point no.4:-

      In view of our above findings, the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs, as prayed for.

      Complainant has prayed for an award of claim of insurance of Rs.3,48,551/- towards the cost of repairing of the vehicle and an award of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. 

      Regarding the claim of insurance towards cost of repairing of the vehicle, the complainant has made out a case that he had to incur a sum of Rs.3,48,551/- and  in support  of his such case, the complainant has filed original bills of cost of repairing, which have been marked as Exbt-5 series.  Those documents were issued by Priti Motors Udyog Pvt. Ltd.,  but no person has been examined to prove those bills and vouchers.  On the contrary, it appears that O.P.-Insurance Company engaged a surveyor to assess the loss of the vehicle.  Said surveyor named Mr. Chanchal Biswas has been examined as OPW-1 and during his evidence, his report of such survey has been marked as Exbt-A.  From that report (Exbt.A) we find that the said surveyor assessed the net loss of the vehicle at Rs.1,87,871.48/- paisa after deduction of depreciation value of the vehicle.  It is the settled law that surveyor’s report carries significance and should be relied on.  Therefore we find reasons to accept the report of surveyor (Exbt.A) and to hold that the complainant is entitled to get the said sum of Rs.1,87,871.48/- paisa towards the claim of insurance.

      Since, we have hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company in repudiating the claim of insurance which compelled the complainant to come before this Forum, so the complainant is entitled to get an award of litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- and he is also entitled to get an award of compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental harassment.

     This point is accordingly disposed of.

     All the points are accordingly decided in favour of the complainant.

      In the result, the complaint case succeeds.

Contd…………………..P/5

 

( 5 )

                                         Hence, it is,

                                                Ordered,

                                that the complaint case no.130/2017  is allowed on contest with cost against the O.P.-Insurance Company Ltd.

      O.P.-Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.1,87,871.48/- paisa to the complainant with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till payment.  O.P.-Insurance Company is further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.

      All such payment shall be made within a month from this date of order i.d. 10% penal interest shall carry over the amount of award.

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

            Dictated and Corrected by me

                    Sd/-B. Pramanik.            Sd/-P.K. Singha         Sd/- S. Sarkar          Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                          President                         Member                    Member                   President

                                                                                                                               District Forum

                                                                                                                             Paschim Medinipur