DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE NO:  CC-  80  of   2017

 

Sri Uttam Adhikari,

S/O- Sri Manoranjan Adhikari,

Chebri, P.S. Khowai,

District- Khowai Tripura. ....….…...Complainant.

 

            VERSUS    

 

      1. The National Insurance Company Ltd.,

To be represented by Divisional Manager,

Agartala Divisional Office, 42, Akhaura Road,

P.O. Agartala HPO, P.S. West Agartala,

West Tripura. ................Opposite Party.

 

 

      2. Sri Mantosh Roy,

S/O- Sri Madhab Roy,

Chebri, Basanti Tilla, 

P.S. Khowai, 

Khowai Tripura- 799207. ............Proforma 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 Tanmoy Chakraborty,

  Advocates.

 

For the O.P. : Sri Amritlal Saha,

  Sri Kajal Nandi,

  Sri Abheek Saha,

  Advocates.

 

For the Proforma O.P. : Sri Rakhalraj Datta,

  Sri Kanulal Pal,

  Sri Jana Bhowmik,

  Advocates.

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 01.11.2017.

 

J U D G M E N T

 

This case arises on the petition filed by one Uttam Adhikari U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that on 04.04.2014 at about 9.30 A.M. The vehicle of the petitioner TATA Sumo met with accident and fell outside the road at Baramura Range. The vehicle was badly damaged. The vehicle was repaired at Kanan Mata Engineering works and Rs.1,66,450/- was spent for repairing. Petitioner approached the O.P. Insurance company claiming the repairing cost as it covered own damage. through its policy. But the claim was rejected on the ground that permit condition was violated by the petitioner. Petitioner suffered because of such deficiency of service and claimed total cost of Rs.1,66,450/- as cost of repairing. 

 

2. O.P. National Insurance Company appeared and filed written objection denying the claim. It is stated that the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the permit. One Mantosh Roy also filed written statement denying the claim. 

 

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

(I) Whether the vehicle was damaged and petitioner is entitled to get cost of repairing?

(II) Whether there was deficiency of service by the National Insurance Company and petitioner is entitled to get compensation?

 

4. Petitioner side produced  copy of chargesheet, copy of bill, advocate's notice, reply. Petitioner also produced original bill, registration certificate, pollution certificate, tax token, permit, insurance Policy, copy of fitness certificate. 

 

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

 

6. One Montosh Roy produced the statement on affidait on one witness. 

 

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

 

Findings and decision:

8. We have gone through the final report of police given in connection with P.S case No- 33 /2014. The case was filed U/S 279/304 against the driver, Monthosh Roy. As per final report the offending vehicle TR 01 B 3933 met accident. It fell 60-70 feet down. 2 person died and 7 person received injury. In the written argument Opposite party only denied the accident but the fact of accident is supported by the police and also eye witness i.e., the driver of the vehicle and also the complainant. We find no reason disbelieve the fact of accident and come to conclusion that the vehicle was damaged by the accident. From the police report it is found that 7 person injured and 2 died by this accident.

 

9. In the written argument it is pointed out by the O.P. Insurance company that seating capacity of the TATA Sumo vehicle was 9 but there is no documents to prove that more than 9 persons had boarded the vehicle. O.P. produced no evidence to support that excess passengers was taken in the TATA Sumo. The claim of the petitioner was denied on the ground that the condition of permit was violated by carrying excess passengers.

 

10. In the letter it is stated that when the vehicle was permitted to use for particular purpose but used for different purpose then it is violation of permit. It is not clarified that for what purpose the permit was issued and for what purpose the vehicle actually was used.

 

11. In another letter Insurance company denied the claim on the ground that at the material time of accident the vehicle was plying with the passengers beyond permit capacity. On what basis and on what information such inference was drawn by the insurance company not clarified. So it is very clear that Insurance company whimsically without any reason claimed that condition of permit was violated.

 

12. From the police report it is found that 9 passengers were carried, 2 died and 7 were injured. Seating capacity of the vehicle admittedly was 9 so, condition of permit was not violated. Inspite of that the claim of the petitioner was denied by the Insurance company which is nothing but deficiency of service.

 

 

13. We have gone through the original bills of Kanan Mata Engineering works where the vehicle was repaired. From the report it is found that 1,66,450/- was spent for repairing. The system in such case is to survey the damage through Insurance Company. But Insurance company did not accept the claim and did not appoint any surveyor for assessment of the damage. So petitioner had no other alternative but to arrange the repairing and he is definitely entitled to get the amount spent for repairing.

 

14. We have gone through the Insurance Policy Certificate issued by the National Insurance Company. Policy was valid till 19.04.2014. Accident occurred as per police report on 04.04.2014. Own damage was covered. Limits of liability arising out of one event was Rs.7,50,000/-. So petitioner Uttam Adhikari is entitled to get the amount spent for repairing. But he is not entitled to get detention charge as claimed. It is not covered by the policy certificate. O.P. Insurance company failed to pay the amount Rs.1,66,450/- to the petitioner when it was claimed on the ground of violation of permit condition. But condition of permit was not violated. For this deficiency of service by the insurance company they have to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. In total petitioner is entitled to get Rs. 1,66,450/- + Rs.20,000/- + Rs.5,000/-. In total petitioner is entitled to get Rs.191,450/-. Both the points are decided accordingly.

 

15. In view of our above findings over the two points the O.P. National Insurance company is hereby directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,91,450/- to the petitioner within 2 months if it is not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.

 

 

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

MT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.