Confronting facts as emerged from the complaint and its confined document is that complainant purchased a truck bearing No.WB66C/3571 which was insured to the H.D.F.C. Ergo general insurance under policy No.2950201857969400000. On 05/11/2017 this truck was dashed by another truck. Husband of the complainant informed to the police station Raghunath Ganj. Complainant after the incident duly filled up the claim- form with required documents along with F.I.R. but all in vain, insurance company did not acknowledge her claim after receipt of all documents. The OP assured, within a month complainant would get Rs.4, 76,467/- but not yet disbursed behind credit shield insurance. Due to non-payment by the insurance company complainant is unable to pay the monthly amount of installment to H.D.B. financial service and financer trying to recall the loan. Hence, complainant has to approach before commission for her problem and mental agony and harassment.

            On the other dogma OP-1, 2, 3 contented inter alia that at first identity of the complaint was not correct. Cause title of the petition says the name of the husband of the complainant as Dinesh Chandra Mandal but in all  papers of policy husband name is shown as Protap Chandra mandal.  So identity of the complainant is vague. That apart in F.I.R. it was stated by the husband that truck was slightly stroked. Thereby her claim amount is exorbitant, so claim is false for taking money from the company. More over claim was not intimated under this policy. Accordingly assessment was not possible and complaint at present premature one. Apart from that insurance was for the coverage of accidental claim or death of insured and credit shield insurance is for permanent disability, total disability of the insured, but not covered by any accidental damage of any vehicle as damaged. The insurance which was asked for credit shield coverage that was for accidental death of the insured only, for not any vehicle. So since in this present case the complainant herself being the insured under the policy is still alive or not suffers from any permanent disability due to accident, the claim for credit shield is not payable under the policy. Under such fact and circumstances the case in liable to be dismissed.

            In order to substantiate the claim of the complainant she examined herself with affidavit and cross examined by the opponent.

            On the other insurance company along with W.V. filed entire insurance papers or policy along with its terms of agreement.

Decision with reason;

Point to be decided;-

Whether insurance company is liable to pay as prayed by the complainant or whether there any deficiency of service or bad trade practices on their part?

            This commission carefully perused the entire record and evidence and document as filed by.

            From the record it is noticed Proforma OP financer was expunged and contest was made by only between complainant and OP-1,2,3 (insurance company).

            From all the papers as filed by the company, it transpired distinctly that in the event of accidental death or permanent disability of the insured during the policy period the company would make the payment of balance outstanding loan amount in the manner as agreed in the name of insured parson in the books of financer/ bank /mortgage company subject to the maximum sum assured pacifically in the schedule. Claim will be directly paid to the financer/bank/ mortgage company to the extent of outstanding amount.

Here from the policy-certificate as embodied is that  “in the name of master policy holder H.D.B. financial limited, premium frequency one time, coverage was death, permanent total disability, and partial disability if premium pays Rs.1,570/- another respect Rs.2,090/-, insured policy was Rs.1,00,000/- when total premium was Rs.12,480/-, failure to pay premium, causes void”.

Consequently from the policy certificate no where we find that for the vehicle any insurance was made or taken. It is admitted position no accidental death took place or caused to the complainant or any permanent or partial disability to the complainant. If so, when dashing was only on the truck, how this policy indemnify to the vehicle? Another fact, no receipt was filed in respect of deposit of premium. If for argument sake we hold that the premium was deposited, then that was only to cover the loan amount of the financer to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- there  no assurance paper was filed by the complainant that company under took to give Rs.4,66,476/- in respect of the vehicle damage. Some Xerox copy of repairing vehicle as was deposited in court/commission those were also not under any signature of repairing shop.

Consequently this commission failed to full fill any prayer of complainant in respect of damage of vehicle as asked for. Commission will merely direct to the OP-1,2,3 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the financer or any balance of loan if not paid by the complainant. But we think loan amount has all ready been satisfied by the company for which ex-punch was asked by the OP-4.

Hence  ordered,

That the complaint is dismissed with regard to the prayer of complainant.

No order of cost is made.