West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/31/2022

Imran Hossain S.O. Bablu Miya - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Cholamandalm MS Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

27 Jun 2024

ORDER

Shri Sudip Majumder- President-in-Charge.

            The complainant/petitioner files this case U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The fact of the case in brief is that the petitioner/complainant, Imran Hossain, permanent resident of Vill.- Mahugram, P.O. and P.S.- Labpur, and Dist.- Birbhum, purchased an insurance policy being No. 3407/00044934/000/00,  Customer ID: 100683835219 dated 24/09/2021, for his four wheeler Hyundai Creta, Regn. being No. WB 48D 7783, EngineNo.D4FCLM955750,ChassisNo.MALC181RLLM659487. The policy was valid from 24/09/2021 to 23/09/2022, IDV Rs. 7,99,992/-.

            It is the further case of the complainant that the vehicle met with an accident on 12/11/2021 at about 08:30 P.M. near Laghata More under P.S. Labpur, District of Birbhum. That thereafter, the complainant informed the OP with a request to settle the claim. The complainant brought the accidental vehicle before the Rudra Hyundai at Durgapur. The surveyor of the OP had been to Rudra Hyundai at Durgapur and examined the vehicle and as per his instruction Rudra Hyundai at Durgapur, sent estimate cost of repair as Rs. 4,70,963/- of the vehicle to the OP/Insurance Company.

            Then, the complainant submitted relevant documents against the claim before the OP/Insurance Company who did not consider the claim of the complainant till date.

Hence, after finding no other alternative the complainant is compelled to file this case before this Forum/Commission for proper reliefs and he prayed the Commission:-

   

                                                                          (1/5)

      

     

     

     “(a) To pass order directing the OP to pay Rs. 4,70,963/- as insurance claim for the damage vehicle.

2. To pass order directing the OP to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on Rs. 4,70,963/- since 12/11/2021 till realization of the claim.
3.  To pass order directing the OP to pay compensation of Rs. 250/- per day as parking charges since 18/11/2021 till the date of exist of the vehicle.

        (d) To pass an order directing the OP to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for causing damages and mental agony.

          (e) To pass an order directing the OP to pay Rs 20,000/- as litigation cost.

          (f)  Other relief or reliefs.”

The OP insurance company stated in Para Nos. 18, 19 and 21 of their written version as:

“18. That the alleged accident occurred on 12/11/2021 while it was intimated to your OP Company on 22/11/2021 for the first time without assigning any reason for such abnormal delay.

 19. That the vehicle was being driven by the petitioner who had no valid and effective license which is also a violation of Policy Condition.

 21. That after through investigation by the Independent Surveyor, your OP company on 16/12/2021 repudiated the claim in writing stating as under:-

The vehicle mismatched found with BI Photo and Physical Survey of the vehicle after accident. It is being repudiated on the ground of violation of Policy Condition.”

            Both parties submitted evidence-in-chief. Complainant submitted written notes on argument. Some documents have also been filed by the complainant’s side and those are compared with the original ones. Thereafter, Ld. Advocate for the complainant made oral argument in support of their case.

            Heard Ld. Advocate for the complainant.

            Considered.

            Perused all the document.

Points for determination/Issues

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer as per definition of the term ‘Consumer’ of the C.P Act. ?
2. Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

 

 

(2/5)

                                                              Decision with reasons

 

Point No. 1:

            In this case, the complainant purchased an insurance policy for his four wheeler Hyundai Creta  vide policy No. 3407/00044934/000/00, which was valid from 24/09/2021 to 23/09/2022. Thus, the complainant is a consumer under the OP insurance company and the OP insurance company is the service provider. Hence, the complainant is a consumer as per Sec. 2(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Point No. 2:

            In this case, the cause of action arose from 12/11/2021. The case has been filed on 15/03/2022 and as such, it can be said that the complainant has filed this case within the statutory period of the C.P. Act, 2019. Hence, the instant complaint is not barred U/S 69(1) of the C.P. Act, 2019.

Pecuniary Jurisdiction of this District Commission as per Notification No. G.S.R. 892(E). dated 20^th December, 2022 by Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. of India, New Delhi i.e. Rs. 50 lakh.

That the complainant is a resident of Vill.- Mahugram, P.O. and P.S.- Labpur, and Dist.- Birbhum, which is under the Territorial Jurisdiction of this District Commission as per Sec. 34(2) of C.P. Act, 2019.

            Hence, this Commission has Pecuniary Jurisdiction as well as Territorial Jurisdiction on the present issue.

Point No. 3:

It appears from the documentary evidence as available in the case record that the complainant purchased an insurance policy for his four wheeler Hyundai Creta, Regn. being No. WB 48D 7783, EngineNo.D4FCLM955750,ChassisNo.MALC181RLLM659487. The policy was valid from 24/09/2021 to 23/09/2022, IDV Rs. 7,99,992/-.

 The vehicle in question met with an accident on 12/11/2021 i.e. within the valid period of the said insurance policy. The complainant claimed Rs. 4,70,963/-  as cost of repairing as it was shown in the bill from Rudra Hyundai at Durgapur. The amount of claim is also within the IDV i.e. within

Rs. 7,99,992/-.

The OP/Insurance Company stated in Para 18 of their W/V that the accident occurred on 12/11/2021 while it was intimated by the complainant on 22/11/2021 for the first time without assigning any reason for such abnormal delay.

We find in Galada Power and Telecommunication Ltd. Vs. United India Insurane Company Ltd. & Anr. (2016) 14 SCC 161 that “Since the letter of repudiation does not even remotely refer to delayed intimation or delayed claim, the said ground cannot be taken as a defence to the claim.”

In the light of observation made by their Lordship in the above decision we find us safe to follow them and apply the ratio in the present dispute.

                                                                    (3/5)

 

 

The OP insurance company further stated in Para 19 of their written version that the vehicle was being driven by the petitioner who had no valid and effective license. But, the petitioner produce his driving license before us which shows that License No. WB-54-084584, Date of issue 21/03/2013 valid upto 20/03/2023 and the license was issued from office of the District Magistrate, Birbhum.

The OP insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 16/12/2021 and stated that “The vehicle mismatched found with BI Photo and Physical Survey of the vehicle after accident. It is being repudiated on the ground of violation of Policy Condition.”

        In this context, the OP was questioned against the evidence in questionnaire 14, “What do you mean by the words, the vehicle mismatch found with BI Photo? Explain vividly”. But the O.P.W. did not reply the questionnaire 14.

       So, the OP Insurance Company neither explain the actual meaning of the term “BI Photo” nor we understand the said term.

It is necessary to mention that the OP insurance company also did not submit surveyor report in the respect of assessment of damages of the vehicle caused in the accident.

Be it pertinent to mention that the evidence of OP insurance company has no evidentiary value as O.P.W.-1 did not reply the questionnaire of the complainant.

From the above discussion, this Commission is of the view that the OP insurance company’s stand not to agree to pay the cost of repairing as claimed by the complainant and the cause shown by the OP side for repudiation of the said claim is baseless and vexatious one.

It is proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the aforesaid act of the OP insurance company is amounting to deficiency in service as per Sec. 2(11) of C.P. Act, 2019 as well as unfair trade practice as per Sec. 2(47) of the C.P. Act, 2019.

Hence, from the above discussion it is proved that the complainant has been able to prove her case beyond all reasonable doubts.

Point No. 4:

From the documentary evidence as available in the case record, it is crystal clear that the complainant is the consumer of the said policy seller.

Also in this case, it is proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

Hence, the complainant is entitled to get relief or compensation as prayed for.

Thus, all the points are decided in favour of the complainant.

Complaint is sufficiently stamped and proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

           

 

                                                                            (4/5)

 

          

           In the instant case as per view of the Hon’ble Apex Court in several cases the interest will be given @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this case.

            In our opinion, 9% interest on insurance claim is enough as relief in form of compensation. Hence, additional relief in form of compensation should not be awarded to the petitioner.

Hence, it is,

            O R D E R E D,

                                        that the instant C.C. Case No. 31/2022 be and same is allowed on contest with cost.

The OP members are jointly or severally directed to pay Rs. 4,23,867/- (Four lakh twenty three thousand eight hundred sixty seven only) to the complainant as calculated here in below:

       Total estimated cost for repairing of the damage vehicle            Rs. 4,70,963

            Less: Depreciation @ 10% p.a. thereon                      -Rs.    47,096

                                                                                    Total     Rs. 4,23,867/- along with interest    

            thereon @ 9% p.a. calculating on and from 15/03/2022 (i.e. from the date of filing of this case) till realization.

          The OP members are jointly or severally directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand only) as cost of litigation to the complainant/petitioner.

The entire decree will be complied by the OP members jointly or severally within 45 (Forty five) days from this date of order, in default, the complainant is at liberty to put this order to execution in accordance with law.

The instant case is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.