In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.388/2010.
1) Sri Nripen Chandra Bhowal,
Ichhapur, Gurdwara, Golapara,
P.O. Ichhapur Nawabgaunge, Barackpur-743144. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.
“MillenniumCity”, I.T.Park, Unit No.T-2-2A,
Tower-II, Plot No.DN-62, Sector-V, Salt lake, Kolkara-91.
2) Mr. Sujit Debnath, Representative,
M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.
“MillenniumCity”, I.T.Park, Unit No.T-2-2A,
Tower-II, Plot No.DN-62, Sector-V, Salt lake, Kolkara-91.
3) M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
3, Middleton Street, Kolkata-71, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani. ---------- Opposite Parties
4) M/s. Speed Travels,
30, Panchanan Ghosh Lane, Kolkata-9 ---------- Proforma Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Order No. 29 Dated 29-11-2013.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased one TATA SUMO VICTA CX EGR for earning for his livelihood and it was purchased with the financial help of the proforma o.p. no.4. The vehicle in question was registered as Maxi-Cab under Motor Vehicle Deptt., Barrackur, North 24 Parganas, Govt. of West Bengal. The vehicle was insured with the proforma o.p. no.3 as Maxi-Cab for the period 29.1.07 – 28.1.08 (midnight) and the proforma o.p. no.3 also issued cover note and policy certificate accordingly.
O.p. no.1 through its representative o.p. no.2 approached the complaiant for insuring the vehicle in question with them through a quotation. O.p. no.2 collected all relevant documents pertaining to the vehicle in question along with previous policy details, copy of Registration Certificate on 29.1.08 and a cheque amounting to Rs.12,900/- vide cheque no.593798 dt.30.1.08 drawn on UBI was handed over to o.p. no.2 for getting insurance of the vehicle in question with o.p. no.1. O.p. no.2 issued a money receipt on behalf of o.p. no.1.
On 31.1.08 o.p. no.1 issued motor cover note being no.LUN 743940 under the Agent Code No.ED 000027 covering the periods from 31.1.08 to 30.1.09 (midnight) wherein the details of the vehicle in question were inscribed. The vehicle was purchased by the complainant and entrusted the vehicle to proforma o.p. no.5 for rental use.
Suddenly on 20.2.08 about 1-30 a.m. the vehicle in question was stolen and Mr. Manas Patra, proprietor of M/s. Speed Travels, proforma o.p. no.5 lodged a General Diary with the Amherst Street P. S. being GDE No.2513 dt.20.2.08 and simultaneously complainant called upon and personally int6imated and handed over all the relevant documents pertaining to the theft claim to o.p. no.2 for further action by o.p. no.1, which o.p. no.2 duly received and acknowledged on 21.2.08.
On 4.4.08 through o.p. no.2 the complainant submitted the remaining claim documents with o.p. no.1 and simultaneously provided the investigator of o.p. no.1 (Mr. Debjit Chakraborty) with all relevant information and documents connected with the claim. Complainant was supplied with a copy of the policy certificate by o.p. no.2 and to the utmost surprise the complainant found that there are several discrepancies in the cover note and policy certificate.
Immediately the complainant informed o.p. no.2 about those discrepancies. O.p. no.2 assured the complainant to rectify those defects but ultimately kept silent. On 2.6.10 o.p. no.1 raised a new / irrelevant question pertaining to the claim and finally vide its letter dt.14.6.10 repudiated the claim of the complainant. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.p. nos.1,2,3 and 5 had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. The name of o.p. no.4 was expunged.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant in his petition of complaint vide para 11 has avered that the v vehicle was engaged for rental use. That apart, from annexure -A, B attached with the petition of complaint we further find that the vehicle was registered as commercial vehicle and under the circumstances we are of the opinion that the instant case is not maintainable under the provision of the C.P. Act, 1986 and the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest without cost.
