West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/61/2016

Sri Amiya Bhowmik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr. Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Swapan Bhattarcharya

30 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

and 

Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.61/2016

                                                        

Sri Amiya Bhowmik, S/o Pravnjan Bhowmik, Vill.- Sahapur, P.O.- Sahapur,

P.S.-Daspur,   Dist. Paschim Medinipur.………..….……Complainant.

 

Vs.

1. Mr. Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Kharagpur Branch, At India, P.O. Kharagpur, P.S. Kharagpur

(2^nd floor of M.S. Towers 11 Atwal Real Estate)

2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. GE Plaza, Airport Road,

Yerwada, Pin-411006...………...........…..Opp. Parties.

 

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Swapan Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Pinaki Sengupta, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 30/08/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant is an educated and unemployed person and on 09/07/2014  he purchased a Bolero Pick up van of Mahindra & Mahindra for his self employment and livelihood.  He purchased the said vehicle after taking loan from Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Service Ltd.  The complainant insured his said vehicle with the opposite party no.1 vide policy no.OG-15-2410-1803-00000499 covering the period from 09/07/2014 to 08/07/2015 and  total sum assured of that policy was Rs.5,27,549/- only.  Thereafter on 06/01/2015, the said

Contd………………..P/2

 

 

( 2 )

vehicle of the complainant met with an accident at Jamalpur, District-Bardwan and due to such accident, the major portion of the vehicle has been damaged.  He took his damaged vehicle to Star India Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Kharagpur and they submitted an estimated cost of Rs.4,15,000/-  for repairing of the damaged vehicle and at present the said vehicle is in the custody of  the Star India Agencies Pvt. Ltd.  After the accident, the complainant submitted a claim form before the opposite party no.1 and thereafter the opposite party no.1 appointed a loss assessor named Satyajit Khatua, who also came to survey the vehicle of the complainant and he received all documents from the complainant in the month of February 2015.  Thereafter all on a sudden one Sajal Guha, said to be the authorised signatory for Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., sent a letter to the complainant on 2/03/2016 thereby stating that due to non-cooperation and non-submission of documents, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated.  After receiving the said letter, the complainant met with opposite party no.1 on 7/03/2016 and raised objection against that notice of repudiation.  He also requested the opposite party no.1 to settle the claim as per law but the opposite party no.1 refused to do so.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the opposite party no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.4,15,000/- as estimated cost of repairing with statutory interest, an award of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service as well as for unfair trade practice, an award of Rs.25,000/- for mental pain and agony and for an award of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.   

                  The opposite party- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. has contested this case by filling a written objection.

                  Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party that the complainant lodged the intimation of accident on 03/02/2015 before Jamalpur P.S.,  Burdwan after delay of  27 days from the date of accident on 06/01/2015 and he also intimated the opposite party- Insurance Company about the said accident after lapse of 48 days without sufficient and satisfactory explanation for delay.  According to policy terms and conditions the intimation should be informed immediately after the occurrence.  It is stated that in case of own damage, the insured should inform to the company immediately within 24 hours otherwise valuable time would be lost for spot inspection or survey of the vehicle and the insurer cannot  verify as to whether any alleged damaged had taken place or not.  The opposite party sent several letters dated 02/02/2016, 20/02/2016, 24/02/2016 and 02/03/2016 to the complainant requesting him to submit driver’s medical details, duly filled up claim form, copy of insurance policy, copy of driving license, copy of registration certificate, repairing  estimate and  copy of F.I.R./MVI report.  Due to non furnishing of those

Contd………………..P/3

 

( 3 )

relevant documents in spite of giving repeated reminders the opposite party could not inspect the vehicle in time and they were compelled to repudiate the claim by sending a letter dated 02/03/2016.  It is therefore stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party –Insurance Company and the opposite party has therefore claimed dismissal of the complaint with cost.  

 

Point for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer ?

          2 ) Is there any deficiency of service on the party of the opposite party ?

                                 3 ) Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?

                   

Decision with reasons

 

     For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

     In this case, neither the complainant nor the opposite party has adduced any sort of evidence, either oral or documentary but the complainant has relied upon some documents, so filed by him.  On the other hand, opposite party filed no documents whatsoever. 

    It is not denied and disputed that the vehicle in question was duly insured with the opposite party-Insurance Company covering the period from 09/07/2014 to 08/07/2015 and it is also not denied and disputed that on 06/01/2015, the vehicle in question met with an accident causing major damage of the vehicle.  Facts also remain undisputed that after the accident, the complainant submitted claim form before the opposite party.  According to the opposite party, the complainant intimated them about the incident of accident after lapse of 48 days without sufficient and satisfactory explanation for delay.  Further according to the opposite party, they sent several letters starting from 02/02/2016 to 2/03/2016 to the complainant thereby asking him to submit relevant documents but as the complainant did not submit those documents so the opposite party by sending a letter dated 02/03/2016 repudiated the claim of the complainant.  In support of their such case, the opposite party-Insurance Company did not file copies of those letters. On the contrary in his petition of complaint, the complainant has stated that after he lodged the claim, one loss assessor named Satyajit Khatua was appointed by the opposite party for assessing the loss and he also came to survey the vehicle of the complainant and received all documents from the complainant in the month of February 2015. Opposite party has not denied that they appointed any such loss assessor

Contd………………..P/4

 

 

 

( 4 )

and they have not filed the report of the loss assessor.  It is not also believable that after submitting claim form, a person who has sustained heavy loss due to accident of the vehicle will not submit relevant documents to the opposite party-Insurance Company for settlement of his claim.  Moreover, we have already stated that the opposite party filed no such copies of letters and reminders allegedly sent by them to the complainant asking him to submit some relevant documents.  In their written objection, the opposite party has stated that due to  non-cooperation of the complainant, the opposite party was compelled to repudiate the claim.  The said case of the O. P.  is not at all believable and the cause shown by the opposite party for such repudiation of the claim is also illegal and not sustainable.  At the time of hearing of argument, Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted that the complainant is ready to handover all relevant documents once again to the opposite party for settlement of his claim.  As against this, Ld. Lawyer for the opposite party submitted that if such documents are handed over by the complainant,  the opposite party-company is ready to reopen the claim for consideration.  In view of such submission, we think that the opposite party-company should be given an opportunity to settle the claim of insurance after obtaining all relevant papers from the complainant.  The petition of complaint is accordingly disposed off.

                                                  Hence, it is,

                                                   Ordered,

                                            that the complaint case no.61/2016  is allowed with a direction to the opposite party-Insurance Company to settle the claim of insurance in question after obtaining necessary papers from the complainant within 60 days from this date of order.  However, in the above circumstances, we make no order as to cost.

                    Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

Dictated and Corrected by me

      Sd/-B. Pramanik.       Sd/- D. Sengupta.     Sd/- K.K.Chattopadhyay.   Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

               President                   Member                        Member                        President

                                                                                                                       District Forum

                                                                                               Paschim Medinipur