West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/47/2021

Sanjit Kr. Dutta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Divisional Manager, NICL, Berhampore Division Office - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit kr Achaarya

31 Jul 2024

ORDER

Shri Sudip Majumder- President-in-Charge.

            The complainant/petitioner files this case U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The fact of the case in brief is that one Sanjit Kr. Dutta the petitioner/complainant No. 1 is a resident of Vill. Nichupara, P.O. and P.S.- Nalhati and Dist. Birbhum, West Bengal within the jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum.

            That the complainant purchased a vehicle being Regn. No. WB- 40AA 8729 from complainant No. 2 of A-41 Moulana Azad Sarani, City Centre Durgapur, Burdwan and the said vehicle was covered with an insurance policy being No. 15400031206160001975. That the insurance policy is valid from 24/03/2021 to 23/03/2022 and IDV of Rs. 3,06,170/-.

            It is the further case of the complainant that on 15/04/2021 that the aforesaid vehicle of the complainant unfortunately collided with a Dumper being No. WB 45 6760 near a petrol pump at Majhkhand and both the vehicle went under the grip of fire and specially the vehicle of the complainant was totally burnt.

            It is the next case of the complainant that immediate after occurrence of the aforesaid accident, the OP insurance company was informed giving the details of the accident along with the relevant documents.

           

(Page 1 of 5)

 

 

 

That Rampurhat police was also informed about the aforementioned accident and the Rampurhat Police started Rampurhat P.S. Case No. 166/2021 dated 15/04/2021 U/S- 379/427 I.P.C.

            It is the specific case of the complainant that the thereafter the surveyor was deputed to assess the quantum of loss. That thereafter the OP’s office sent a letter of repudiation vide letter Ref. No.- 154000/Motor claim/2021, dated 09/06/2021 wherein it is stated that “……..We find that you have submitted a policy in the name of one Mr. Asoke Kr. Chakraborty against present claim of yours whereas the R.C Book is in the name of Mr. Sanjit Durtta. It is pertinent to mention that as per Motor G.R. 17, it clearly states that in the case of a charge of ownership after given due to effect from that date by the M.V Deptt., A transferee shall apply within 14 (fourteen) days to that Insurer for necessary change in the policy. In the present form of claim, you had not submitted that policy issued in favour of you by N.I Co. Ltd., Whatsoever. Hence Insurance Company have no liability for the above claim.”

            The complainant further stated in Para-7 of his plaint that the OP insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the grounds stated above illegally. That vehicle was covered with the insurance and the policy is valid and the vehicle was burnt during the continuation of the policy and as such either the complainant No. 1 or complainant No. 2 will entitled to get the insurance claim as the claim is genuine.

            Hence, after finding no other alternative the complainant is compelled to file this case before this Forum/Commission for proper reliefs and prays for:-

1. To pass order directing the OP to pay Rs. 3,06,170/- to the complainant.
2. To pass order directing the OP to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on Rs. 03,06,170/- since 15/04/2021 till realization of the claim.
3. To pass order directing the OP to pay compensation of Rs 1,00,000/- for causing damages and mental agony.
4. To pass an order directing the OP to pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.
5. Other relief/reliefs.

The OP insurance company stated in page 3 and 4 of their written notes on argument as:

“……..As per RC extract received from Birbhum RTO the ownership of the vehicle under

consideration is being transferred in the name of Sanjit Dutta with effect from 31/03/2021. It is has been observed that neither you or any of your representatives have been submitted any request for change of insured in the captioned policy no you have paid any fees or submitted  an proposal form for change of ownership of the Policy. Till date we have not submitted any such request from your end. Hence, you

 

(Page 2 of 5)

 

 

 

have not submitted any request as for charge of ownership within the stipulated time as mentioned GR17 of 1MT………..

            Hence it is evident that, which is violation of policy condition and OP insurance company very rightly no claim due to VIOLATION OF GENERAL REGULATION 17 (Transfer) of Indian Motor Tariff which is gross “VIOLATION OF POLICY CONDITATION”….……”

            Ultimately, the OP prayed for dismissal of the case.

            It appears from the case record that the OP submitted their written version but did not file any OPW. The OP did not take any step alike previous date. However, we have given attention to the view of the OP side from their written version.

Thereafter, Ld. Advocate for both parties submitted evidence-in-chief and written notes on argument. Some documents have also been filed by the complainant which were compared with the original ones. Thereafter, Ld. Advocate for the complainant made oral arguments in support of their case.

            Heard Ld. Advocates for the both parties.

            Considered.

            Perused all the documents.

Points for determination/Issues

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer as per definition of the term ‘Consumer’ of the C.P Act. ?
2. Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Op?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

Point No. 1:

            In this case, the complainant purchased an insurance policy for his vehicle vide policy No. 15400031206160001975 dated 24/03/2021. Thus, the complainant is a consumer under the OP member and the OP member is the service provider. Hence, the complainant is a consumer as per Sec. 2(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Point No. 2:

            In this case, the cause of action arose from 15/04/2021. The case has been filed on 28/07/2021 and as such it can be said that the complainant has filed this case within the statutory period of the C.P. Act, 2019 and as such the instant complaint is not barred by Section 69(1) of the C.P. Act, 2019.

 

(Page 3 of 5)

 

 

 

Pecuniary Jurisdiction of this District Commission as per Notification No. G.S.R. 892(E). dated 20th December, 2022 by Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. of India, New Delhi i.e. Rs. 50 lakh.

The complainant No. 1 is a resident of Vill. Nichupara, P.O. and P.S.- Nalhati and Dist.- Birbhum, West Bengal which is under the Territorial Jurisdiction of this District Commission as per Sec. 34(2) of C.P. Act, 2019.

            Hence, this Commission has Pecuniary Jurisdiction as well as Territorial Jurisdiction on the present issue.

Point No. 3:

We have gone through the records of this case. It appears that the complainant in his plaint has neither

submitted any documents nor submitted any statement as to when he purchased the vehicle in question from Mr. Ashoke Kumar Chakraborty.

            The complainant in his W/N/A has argued that the transfer has been effected in the name of the complainant on and from 31/03/2021.

            The complainant has admitted GR. 17 policy rule of the OP insurance company. We have gone through the policy rule. It further appears to us that to get the coverage of insurance by the transferee an application for change of the name of the insured should be made within 14 days from the date of transfer.

            Hence, if the date of transfer of ownership of the vehicle was made on 31/03/2021, the stipulated 14 days end on 13/04/2021, prior to the holidays out of which he could not inform the OP for the same as stated by the complainant.

            We have observed that the complainant No. 1, Sanjit Kumer Dutta has inserted the name of Mrs. Ashoke Kumar Chakraborty as complainant No. 2 in the instant complaint case. It is the submission of the petitioner/complainant No. 1 under point No. 7 of the plaint that as the insurance was valid during the occurrence of accident he or the transferor Mr. Ashoke Kumar Chakraborty, the complainant No. 2 is entitled to get the claim for the damages.

            But, we are surprised enough to observed that the name of Mr. Ashoke Kumar Chakraborty has been inserted as complainant No. 2 in the plaint without putting his signature. Further, there is no signature of the said complainant No. 2 in the affidavit as well as in the Vokalatnama.

            Again, as per the terms and conditions of the OP insurance company the complainant No. 2 as the transferor of the vehicle in question has no authority to claim before the insurance company after selling the concerned vehicle. So, the effort of making the said Mr. Ashoke Kumar Chakraborty  a party of this complaint case does not support the claim of the complainant in any way.

            (Page 4 of 5)

 

 

 

 

We find have also gone through the letter of the OP dated 09/06/2021 from where it is found that the complainant made his intimation on the matter by letter dated 08/05/2021 much later of the stipulated period. The OP rejected his application out of the bar of 14 days but also gave him an opportunity to communicate on the matter within 7 days, but thereafter, we find no progress on the matter from the part of the complainant. Accordingly, we are of the view that the instant complaint suffers from lacuna of complainant’s delay in pursuing the matter which has made his right a failure. There is no substance in the claim of the complainant from these point of views.

Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP insurance company.

Point No. 4:

From the above discussion it is proved that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP member. So, the complainant is not entitled to get the claim as prayed in the instant case.

            In that analogy, we are sorry not to accede to the prayer made by the complainant in this case. So, the case fails.

Hence, it is,

            O R D E R E D,

                                        that the instant C.C. Case No. 47/2021 be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost.

The instant case is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.