Sri Ramkrishna Tapadar filed a consumer case on 17 May 2023 against IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd in the West Tripura Consumer Court. The case no is CC/325/2022 and the judgment uploaded on 18 May 2023.
Tripura
West Tripura
CC/325/2022
Sri Ramkrishna Tapadar - Complainant(s)
Versus
IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)
1.This case is filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by Sri Ramkrishna Tapadar of Ashram Chowmuhani, Agartala(in short 'Complainant') against the O.Ps namely IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Guwahati, Assam(in short 'O.P. No.1') and IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Agartala, Tripura West(in short 'O.P. No.2') alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
1.2The fact of the case in short is that daughter of the complainant, Sarmistha Tapadar since deceased was the owner of the two wheeler bearing registration No. TR -01- AN 5470 which was duly insured with the O.P. Insurance company vide Policy No. 17218501 covering period from 22.06.2020 to 21.06.2021 along with PA cover for owner cum driver.
1.3On 11.10.2020 at about 1000 hours the daughter of the complainant Miss Sarmistha Tapadar since deceased while going to Teliamura riding her two wheeler met with a Road Traffic Accident at Champaknagar on Assam - Agartala Road.
1.4She sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Champaknagar hospital and thereafter referred to AGMC and GBP Hospital and expired at AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala on 11.10.2020. Post mortem examination was also conducted on the dead body of Sarmistha Tapadar.
1.5The matter was informed to the Jirania P.S. and U.D. Case No. 2020/JRN/017 dated 08.11.2020 was also registered.
1.6Thereafter the matter was duly informed to the O.Ps on 02.11.2020 but the Insurance company did not respond.
1.7The complainant then served legal Notice to the O.P. No.1 through his Advocate on 01.10.2021 but the O.Ps remained non-responded and did not settle the claim of the complainant.
1.8Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case for getting relief claiming Rs.15,00,000/- along with 9% interest and cost of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
2.The case proceeded exparte against the O.P. No. 1 vide order dated 12.09.2022 as the O.P. after getting sufficient opportunity failed to submit their written version.
2.1The O.P. No.2 Insurance company in their written objection denied and disputed the contention of the complaint in various paragraphs. The O.P. further stated in the written objection that due to not receiving intimation within time the O.P. Insurance company could not verify the fact.
3.The complainant submitted evidence on affidavit with documents i.e., certificate of registration of the scooty; the driving license of Sarmistha Tapadar, Policy of Insurance and copy of U/D case; copy of P.M. examination and also Legal Notice dated 01.10.2021 issued on the O.P. Insurance company.
3.1The O.P. Insurance company also submitted evidence on affidavit although did not submit written objection in time.
4.Argument was heard and on the basis of argument and evidence the following points are taken up for discussion and decision:-
(I) Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Insurance company?
(II) Whether the O.P. Insurance company was justified in not releasing the amount of P.A. coverage due to the death of Sarmistha Tapadar?
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:-
5.Both the points are taken up together for discussion and decision.
5.1The complainant in support of his complaint has proved the registration of scooty bearing No. TR -01-AN -5470 in the name of the deceased Sarmistha Tapadar; driving license of Sarmistha Tapadar from 15.06.2017 to 14.06.2037, the policy of Insurance covering the period 22nd June, 2020 to 21st June, 2021 wherein premium for P.A. coverage of Rs.15 Lakhs was duly paid; certificate of P.M. examination over the dead body of Sarmistha Tapadar and the Unnatural Death case vide Jirania P.S. U/D case no. 2020/JRN/017 dated 08.11.2020.
5.2On the contrary, the written objection and evidence of the O.P. is nothing but casual denial of the case of the complainant. There is no valid reason why the amount of P.A. coverage was not paid to the complainant. Although such claim was lodged within time along with all documents and also submitted the legal notice dated 01.10.2021 to the O.P. As such the O.P. Insurance company is hugely deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant.
5.3Both the points aqre decided accordingly.
6.In the result, it is ordered that the O.P. Insurance company shall pay the assured sum of Rs.15 Lakhs under P.A. coverage to the complainant along with interest @ 7.5% P.A. w.e.f. 01.10.2021 i.e., the date of serving Legal Notice upon the O.P. till the date of actual payment and a further sum of Rs.1 Lakh to the complainant for deficiency in service in default to pay within 30 days from today. This amount of Rs.1 Lakh shall also carry interest @ 7.5% P.A. from today till the date of actual payment.
7.The case stands disposed off. Supply a copy of this Final Order free of cost to all the parties.
Announced.
SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA
DR (SMT) BINDU PAL
MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA
SRI SAMIR GUPTA
MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.