C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/46
COMPLAINANT : Amar Krishna Dey, President
Lions Club of Ranaghat West
P.O. & P.S. Ranaghat,
Dist. Nadia.
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPS : 1) Divisional Manager,
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Barasat Divisional Office
68, K.N.C. Road,
Barasat, Dist. 24 Parganas (N)
2) Branch Manager,
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Kalyani Branch Office,
A/9/13 (s) Kalyani,
P.O. & P.S. Kalyani,
Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 27th July, 2010
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is the president of Lions Club of Ranaghat West which is one of the units of Lions Club International and being the largest NGO in the world serves for the humanities in various aspects. It is his further case that this Lions Club runs one Eye Hospital at Ranaghat for the last 10 years and for this purpose it purchased an ambulance being vehicle No. WB-51/3578 and the said ambulance was covered under the insurance policy of the OP being policy No. 512402/31/006/00005144 dtd. 29.03.07 and the policy was valid up to 28.03.08. This ambulance on 12.05.07 fell in an accident at Haringhata on NH 34 due to which Haringhata P.S. case No. 80/2007 was started and the vehicle was badly damaged in this accident also. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a claim application for the damaged vehicle maintaining all the formalities along with all the documents before the OP Insurance Co. After investigation the OP Insurance Co. recommended to D.O. for approval on net of salvage basis for Rs. 1,15,000/- on 19.02.08. The complainant requested the OP Insurance Co. to release the said amount as compensation, but to no effect. So having no other alternative this case is filed praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
Written version is filed on behalf of the OP No. 1 & 2. It is their submission that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate this case as it is not a consumer dispute. It is also stated by the OPs that the complainant sent two letters dtd. 15.10.08 and 11.12.08 to the OPs but the company was proceeding about the claim as per their norms. So the company has not yet repudiated the claim of the petitioner, rather the company is proceeding to fulfil the claim which was surveyed by the surveyor of the OP company. Before settling the claim by the OP Insurance Co. this case is filed by the complainant which is a pre-matured one and it is practically filed to harass the OP. As the case of the complainant has not yet repudiated by the OPs, so the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against the OPs.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the Forum jurisdiction to try this case?
Point No.2: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.3: Is he entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All 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 the annexed documents and the written version filed by the OPs and after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for the parties it is available on record that this complainant is the president of Lions Club of Ranaghat which is a unit of Lions Clubs International and this Lions Club conducts one Eye Hospital for which it has an ambulance and the said ambulance was covered by the insurance of OPs valid up to 28.03.08. From the written version as well as from 'Annexure – 8’ it is available on 12.05.07 this ambulance fell in an accident at Haringhata due to which Haringhat P.S. case No. 80/2007 was started and in that accident the vehicle was severely damaged. Accordingly, the complainant submitted a claim application before the OP Insurance Co. which was surveyed by the surveyor of the OPs. Final survey was done by Mr. K. Bandopadhyay and the report was submitted on 16.10.07 by him before the OP Insurance Co. In his report he recommended an estimated a loss to the tune of Rs. 1,15,000/- and that amount was recommended to D.O. (OP No. 1) for approval on net of salvage basis on 19.02.08. From 'Annexure – 6’ it is available that the OP No. 2 sent a letter to OP No. 1 requesting him to inform the latest status of the claim file which was sent by it on 19.02.08 to the OP No. 1 for approval. Complainant sent two letters dtd. 15.10.08 and 11.12.08 vide 'Annexure – 1 & 4’ requesting the OP No. 1 to settle his claim. On the side of the OPs there is no denial regarding the accident of the vehicle and the appointment of the surveyor and even the report of the surveyor. Their only plea is that the case is under consideration and they have not still repudiated the claim. So the complainant has no cause of action to file this case. From the facts of this case we find that the accident happened on 12.05.07 thereafter, the claim application was submitted by the complainant and the OP appointed a surveyor who submitted his final report on 16.10.08 recommending Rs. 1,15,000/- as net liability of the OP and recommended for the payment of the said amount on net of salvage basis. But sill now the OP No. 1 i.e., the divisional office of the Insurance Co. has neither settled the claim of the complainant nor it has repudiated the said claim application. Rather we find that it has withheld the claim application of the complainant without assigning any reason which we hold is a gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1. It is the duty of the OP No.1 to settle a claim at an early date, but here we find that the OP No. 1 has not settled the claim nor repudiated the same for more than one year without assigning any reasonable ground. The complainant’s claim is not denied by the OPs in the written version. So in view of above discussions our considered view is that the complainant’s case is well proved and the complainant is entitled to get the amount recommended by the surveyor of the OP No. 2.
It is agitated by the OPs in the written version that it is not a consumer dispute and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case. It is settled that the Lions Club is an international one who acts as a NGO. NGO works for the interest of the public and not it is a profit earning institution. Section 2(m)(iv) describes a person “Every other association of persons whether registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860 (21 of 1860) or not.” So the Lions Club falls within this category and it is treated as a person under section 2 of the CP Act, 1986. So he is undoubtedly a consumer in the eye of law and this Forum is quite competent to try this case also. Besides this Lions Club does not work for commercial purpose, rather for charitable purpose. It is categorically stated in the petition of complaint that it used the vehicle for the purpose of carrying patients from one place to another place. So it cannot be held that it is a profit earning institution.
In view of above discussions, we have no hesitation to hold that this complainant has cause of action to file this case. We do also hold that as the complainant has become able to prove his case, so he is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for. In result the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/46 be and the same is decreed on contest against the OPs. The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 1,15,000/- as compensation for the damage of the vehicle on net as salvage basis + Rs. 5,000/- for harassment caused to this complainant along with litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/-, i.e., in total of Rs. 1,22,000/-. The OP No. 1 & 2 are jointly or severally directed to pay the decretal amount of Rs. 1,22,000/- within a period of one month since this date of passing this judgment, in default the decretal amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum till the date of realization of the full amount.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
