West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/90/2017

Sanjoy Mondal, S/o Haradhan Mondal, - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Loombard General Insurance Company Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Kr. Acharya

06 Apr 2018

ORDER

The case of the complainant Sanjoy Mondal, in brief, is that he is owner of a Bolero Maxi Truck being No. WB45-0021which is covered with insurance under the O.P being policy No. 3003/96660717/02/000, having total IDV of Rs. 313411/- valid from 25.11.2016 to 24.11.2017.

            It is the further case of the complainant that on 26.08.2017 his said vehicle met with an accident in front of SBI, on New Alipur-Taratala Road, while driver of the said vehicle was trying to save a pedestal and dashed with a tree. The truck was badly damaged. He informed the police and the police lodged Alipur PS GDE No. 1965 dt. 26.08.2017. He also informed the O.P/Insurance Co. on 26.08.2017.

            It is the further case of the complainant that his damaged truck was brought to Supreme Motor, NH6, Bombay Road, Howrah 711114, authorized service centre of Mahindra for repair. The O.P/Insurance Co. also deputed Surveyor, who examined the vehicle and asked the complainant to submit estimated costs. Rs. 192111/- has been assessed as repair costs by said service centre and he submitted his claim before the O.P/Insurance Co. with relevant papers including estimated costs. But the O.P/Insurance Co. repudiated his claim by sending a letter dated 23.09.2017 arbitrarily and illegally.

Hence this case for directing the O.P/Insurance Co. to pay Rs. 192111/- as insurance claim with interest.

Inspite of due service of notice O.P/ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. has not appeared and the case was heard ex parte against them.

DECISION WITH REASONS

During the trial the complainant Sanjoy Mondal has been examined as PW1 and filed some documents.

Heard arguments of Ld. Advocate/Agent of the complainant.

We find that the complainant in complaint and evidence stated that he is owner of a Bolero

 

Maxi Truck being No. WB45-0021which is covered with insurance under the O.P being policy No. 3003/96660717/02/000, having total IDV of Rs. 313411/- valid from 25.11.2016 to 24.11.2017.

            Copy of the insurance policy shows that mini truck in question was under coverage of insurance  of the O.P Insurance Co. for the period 25.11.16 to 24.11.17 with IDV of Rs. 313411/- and premium paid was Rs. 2466/- P.A.

            The complainant in his evidence further stated that on 26.08.2017 his said vehicle met with an accident in front of SBI, on New Alipur-Taratala Road, while driver of the said vehicle was trying to save a pedestal and dashed with a tree. The truck was badly damaged. He informed the police and the police lodged Alipur PS GDE No. 1965 dt. 26.08.2017. He also informed the O.P/Insurance Co. on 26.08.2017.

            The copy of the Alipur P.S GDE No. 1965 dated 26.08.17 shows that a diary was lodged by one Dipankar Bhuinya alleging that the vehicle in question i.e. WB45/0021, Bolero Maxi Truck met an accident on 26.08.17 on Alipur-Taratala Road and the same was badly damaged.

            The complainant further stated that his damaged truck was brought to Supreme Motor, NH6, Bombay Road, Howrah 711114, authorized service centre of Mahindra for repair. The O.P/Insurance Co. also deputed Surveyor, who examined the vehicle and asked the complainant to submit estimated costs. Rs. 192111/- has been assessed as repair costs by said service centre and he submitted his claim before the O.P/Insurance Co. with relevant papers including estimated costs. But the O.P/Insurance Co. repudiated his claim by sending a letter dated 23.09.2017 arbitrarily and illegally.

            The copy of the estimated cost issued by Supreme and Company Pvt. Ltd. Howrah shows that estimated cost of Rs. 192111/- was assessed by said service centre.

            Copy of the repudiation letter dated 23.09.2017 shows that the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground of misrepresentation of facts (driver details are misrepresented at intimation/claim form from actual and try to hide the material facts).

            We find that in his evidence the complainant stated that he never made any misrepresentation of facts about the driver detailed as on the long route two drivers were deployed the car rotationally and as per MV Act there is no violation of the law.

            The complainant has filed copy of the DL of his driver Dipanker Bhuinya, which shows that he was authorized to drive LMV.

            During hearing of the argument Ld. Advocate/Agent of the complainant submitted that certainly before amendment of the Act., an endorsement on license was required to drive transport vehicle of LMV class but in view of the ruling reported in IV(2017)CPJ 13(SC) no such endorsement is necessary.

            We find that in the said ruling Hon’ble Apex Court pleased to hold that “Light Motor Vehicle” as defined in Sec. 2(21) of the MV Act 1988 would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Sec.2(21) read with Sec.2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicle are not excluded from the

 

definition of LMV by virtue of Amendment Act. 54/1994. Transport vehicle and Omni Bus gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500Kg. No separate endorsement of license is required to drive transport vehicle of LMV class as enumerated.

            It appears from the registration certificate in respect of the vehicle in question weight of the same was 2620Kg.

            So, in view of above cited ruling in present case also no endorsement on license is necessary.

According to the evidence of the complainant he had two drivers, the driving license of the other driver Yadav shows that he has /had license to drive Light Vehicle as well as transport vehicle.

We further find that in the present case the complainant by submitting evidence on affidavit narrated everything. But the O.P/Insurance Co. has not come to challenge the evidence of the complainant.

In view of the ruling reported in IV2006CPJ 2013(NC) wherein a complaint case the complainant filed an affidavit by way of evidence but the O.Ps neither filed any evidence by way of affidavit nor cross examined the deponent. Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that allegation of the complainant remained uncontroverted and in absence of any counter affidavit case of the complainant stands prove.

            Considering overall matter into consideration and unchallenged testimony of the complainant we are constrained to hold that the O.P/Insurance Co. has illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

            Accordingly the case is liable to be allowed. The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 192111/- as claim amount with interest @ Rs. 6% P.A. from the date of filing claim till realization. He is also entitled to get Rs. 10000/- as compensation.

Proper fees have been paid.

 

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that C.F case No. 90/2017 be and the same is allowed on ex parte against O.P with a cost of Rs. 2000/-.

            The O.P ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to pay Rs. 192111/- as Insurance claim with interest @ Rs. 6% P.A. from the date of filing claim till realization to the complainant. The O.P is also directed to pay Rs. 10000/- as compensation for causing mental pain, agony and harassment to the complainant, within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order as per law and procedure.

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.