DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE NO:  CC – 86  of   2017

 

      Sri Tinku Ghosh,

S/O- Late Nandulal Ghosh,

C/O- Sherowali Tour & Travels,

L.N. Bari Road, Agartala, 

P.S. East Agartala, 

West Tripura- 799 001. ........…...Complainant.

 

         -VERSUS-

 

The National Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Agartala Divisional Office,

42, Akhaura Road,

Agartala, West Tripura- 799 001

(To be represented by 

it's Divisional Manager). ........... Opposite Party.

 

 

__________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C  O  U  N  S  E  L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Bijan Saha,

  Advocate.

 

For the O.P. : Sri Sandip Datta Chowdhury, 

  Advocates.

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  21.03.2018.

 

J U D G M E N T

This case arises on the petition filed by one Tinku Ghosh U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that on 13.09.15 while his vehicle (bus) was going towards Guwahati from Agartala met an accident at Sindhu Kumar Para. The vehicle was damaged by such accident. Informed the accident to the Insurance Company and thereafter submitted the claim for compensation. After many correspondence Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the plea that petitioner had violated the policy condition by carrying excessive passengers. Petitioner spent Rs.2,69,000/- for repairing the vehicle and entitled to get it.  Due to the deficiency of service of the O.P. Insurance Company petitioner claimed amount along with compensation.  

 

2. O.P. Insurance company filed the written statement denying the claim. It is stated that the petitioner failed to submit the required documents in support of the claim. It is also stated that complainant violated the policy condition by carrying excessive passenger in his vehicle. As such petitioner is not entitled to get cost of repairing as claimed. There was no deficiency of service by the Insurance company.

 

3. On the basis of contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination;

(I) Whether the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the policy and whether not entitled to get cost of repairing of the damaged vehicle?

(II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for the deficiency of service by the O.P. Insurance company?

 

4. Petitioner produced the certificate of Registration, driving License, money receipts, Insurance Policy Certificate, ASTC Permit, fitness & Pollution Certificate, Estimate of the vehicle, registered letters, Registered post, passengers list, marked as Exhibit- 1 Series. 

Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of one witness i.e., the petitioner himself. 

 

5. On the other hand, O.P. produced the F.I.R., charge sheet, letter of the complainant to the O.P. marked Exhibit- A Series and also statement on affidavit of Biswajyoti Bora, Administrative Officer of Insurance Company.

 

6. On the basis of all these evidence on record we shall now determine the above points.

 

Findings and decision:

7. It is found that O.P. Insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that petitioner violated the terms and condition of the policy. Biswajyoti Bora,  D.W. 1, Administrative Officer of the Insurance company stated that petitioner violated the policy condition. Violation of M.V. Act was committed by carrying excessive passengers even in the cabin of the driver and contention is proved by the investigation of the police. 

 

8. We have gone through the FIR, charge sheet. In the charge sheet it is written that the passenger told the police that driver of the truck drove his defective vehicle and caused the accident. The driver of the bus taken excessive passenger and allowed passengers to obstruct his control over the vehicle.  Nothing revealed about how many passengers were carried and what was the capacity of the bus. From the investigation it is found that accident occurred not due to taking excessive passengers but due to collision with a truck. Petitioner in his statement on affidavit stated that O.P. Insurance company sought some documents and he submitted all such documents in support of his claim. Inspite of submission of all documents as sought O.P. repudiated the claim. 

 

9. We have gone through the Exhibit- 1 Series documents furnished by the petitioner. In the letter dated 09.10.16  it is found that the O.P. Insurance company asked the petitioner to produce all documents list of passengers, police report, M.V. Report within 15 days. Again by letter dated 9th March 2017 O.P. Insurance company  requested the petitioner to produce bill/ vouchers, vehicle documents, list of passengers, driving license, police report, M.V.I. Report. Reminder sent on 25.03.17. Documents were  furnished again on 27th April 2017. O.P. asked for passenger list, police report, cash memo of spare parts, bills, vouchers of repair. Those were also submitted. List of passenger also given. Inspite of that the claim was repudiated on the ground that the petitioner violated the terms and condition as excessive passenger were carried. When such plea is taken by the Insurance company burden lies on him that actually excessive passenger were carried by the petitioner. From the passenger list as furnished and police report  nothing comes out to support that excessive passenger was carried. Accident occurred due to collision with another truck not for carrying excessive passenger. As such it is established that petitioner did not violate the terms and conditions of the policy and he is entitled to get the cost of repairing of the vehicle. 

 

10. We have gone through the Insurance Policy certificate. Period of Insurance was 10.01.15 to 09.01.16. The accident occurred on 13.09.15 when the policy was very much alive. From the Policy certificate it is found that the petitioner paid premium Rs.25,143/- for covering over own damage of the vehicle at the relevant period. The vehicle had registration, driven by the licensed driver, all papers were O.K. Petitioner also informed the Branch Manager, National Insurance Company about the accident in time. But surveyor not appointed in time to assess the claim. Petitioner made correspondence, produced all required documents but damage was not assessed, compensation not paid. All these are deficiency of service by the National Insurance Company. 

 

11. We have gone through the M.V.I. Report and found that Wind Shield, Chassis, Cabin, Dash Board, engine, Steering Box, Radiator were damaged. Vehicle was repaired in Guwahati. Rs.2,69,000/- was spent and money receipt was given in support of it. Estimate of  Kirti Workshop  is produced. But estimate is not proofof total expenditure. 

 

12. We have gone through the retail invoice of LSPL Motors Pvt. Ltd. As per the invoice total Rs.1,72,000/- was spent for repairing the vehicle. This fact comes out from the invoice and cash memo of 'Kamrup Motors'. Petitioner is entitled to get this amount of Rs.1,72,000/- for cost of repairing. Petitioner suffered because of delay of deficiency of service by Insurance Company and for that deficiency of service petitioner is entitled to get Rs.15,000/-. Petitioner is also entitled to get Rs.5,000/- for litigation cost.  In total petitioner is entitled to get Rs.1,92,000/-. Both the points are decided accordingly.

 

13. In view of our above findings over the two points we direct the O.P. to pay the amount Rs.1,92,000/- to the petitioner.  The amount is to paid  within 2(two) months, if not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A. Case is disposed accordingly. Supply copy free of cost.

  

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA SRI  U. DAS

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA