IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SONITPUR AT TEZPUR
District: Sonitpur
Present: Smti A. Devee
President,
District Consumer D.R Forum,
Sonitpur, Tezpur
Sri P.Das,
Member,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum,Sonitpur
Smti S.Bora Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum,Sonitpur
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.08/2018
1.Mrs Rumi Das : Complainant
W/o Late Bipin Das
Resident of Koria,P.O Nalbari,
Dist:Nalbari,State:Assam
Vs.
1.Divisional Manager : Opp.party
National Insurance Co.Ltd.Tezpur Br.
Dist:Sonitpur, State : Assam
Appearance:
Mr S. Khan, Adv. : For the Complainant
Mr. M.K.Baruah, Adv. : For the Opp. Party No.1
None : For Opp. No.2
Date of argument : 03-11-2018
Date of Judgment : 14-11-2018
JUDGMENT
- Facts leading to the filing of the complaint by the complainant Mrs Rumi Das, wife of Late Bipin Das, in brief, as narrated in the complaint are that her husband, during his lifetime purchased a new “Honda Activa”109 STD(a Scooty) at Rs.47,764/- on 21-11-2014.The vehicle was duly insured with the opposite party National Insurance Company,Tezpur Branch, vide Policy No.20090031146260000444 for a period of one year w.e.f 20-11-2014 to 20-11-2015. Unfortunately on 18-12-2014 while the husband of the complainant was
proceeding to Nalbari by driving the Scooty, a speedy truck coming from opposite direction dashed against the Scooty at Kharupetia near Lovely hotel. As a result of such accident husband of the complainant died instantaneously. The complainant lodged damage claim before the Insurance Company with documents. As the opposite party failed to settle the claim, a legal notice was sent on 24-07-2017. On 30-08-2017, a reply to the legal notice was sent by the opposite party but failed to settle the claim. Hence, the complainant is before the Forum with the complaint for passing orders for payment of the sum assured of Rs.47,764/- along with compensation of Rs.30,000/- for mental tension, agony loss of business etc. with interest @18% per anum from the date of filing complaint.
- The opposite party failed to submit written version. However vide order dated 21/05/18, the opposite party was allowed to take part in hearing of the case.
- In support of her case, complainant as witness submitted her evidence-in-chief on affidavit as C.W.1 along with 3 numbers of documents. The documents are exhibited and marked as follows-
Ext-1 Motor Accident Claim Form
Ext-1(1)- Letter issued by the opposite party
Ext-2- Claim intimation letter.
- Complainant also submitted photocopies of some documents. C.W.1 faced cross-examination. We have heard arguments being forwarded by the learned counsels for the parties. Also perused the written arguments submitted by them. To decide the matters in controversy between the parties, we have gone through the entire materials on record and found the following points relevant to be decided :-
POINTS:
(i)Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite
Party?
(ii)Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief ?
DECISION ON THE POINTS
5.Point No.(i): Learned advocate Sri M.C Boruah, appearing for the opposite party advancing his argument submitted that as per Circular bearing No.TECH/MOT/1314/05 CMD Sectt’s Master Circular No.035/2013-14 dated 19-12-2013 opposite party is not liable to entertain the claim without registration certificate of the vehicle. The complainant was directed to submit vehicular documents, but she failed to comply with the same. He continued to submit that at the time of accident there was no valid registration. Therefore, the claim of the complainant is liable to be rejected.
6. Countering the contention raised by Mr Boruah, Md. S.Khan, learned counsel for the complainant submitted in his written argument as follows -
(1)The vehicle was duly registered but opposite party failed to bring DTO to prove about R/C.
(2)That how the insurance company without knowing of R/C issued insurance policy and covered risk of one year is totally gross deficiency from the part of the insurance company.
(3)That in policy and terms and condition why Insurance Company not mentioned about circular that the claim cannot be entertained claim if not entertained then how policy is issued and took premium by cheating.
(4)That all documents are submitted before insurance company and it is duty to produce before Forum”.
7. The vehicle in question allegedly met with an accident within one month of its purchase. According to the complainant, her deceased husband had purchased a new “Honda Activa 109 STD” vide RegistrationNo.AS-14-E-9001 Chassis No.ME4JF502LE7265410 engine No.JF50E71265494 on (sic) sum of Rs.47,764/- and said Scooty was duly insured with National Insurance Company Tezpur Branch for a period from 21/11/2014 to 20-11-2014 vide policy No.20090031146260000444”.
8. The complainant submitted photocopy of Registration Cerificate. Though the complainant failed to produce original document, yet we have given a cursory glance at the photocopy of R/C. Complainant marked the said document as “submitted document 3”. As per said document registration No.AS-14-E-9001 was issued on 28-10-2015 by the DTO, Nalbari, Assam for a Honda Activa in the name of Bipin Das. Bipin Das is the name of the husband of the complainant. As per the complainant, her husband died on 18-12-2014. That means registration certificate was issued in the name of a dead person after about one year of his death.
9. To determine the case before us, we are not required to discuss how the registration certificate was issued in the name of a dead man after more than ten month of his death. We are here to discuss only whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as the new Honda Activa which was duly insured with the opposite party, got damaged in a road accident within one month of its purchase. The vehicle on the date of accident was under temporary registration.
10. Ext-1 and Ext-2 demonstrate that the Motor Insurance Claim form was filed on 10-07-2015. On the otherhand Ext-1(1) demonstrates that vide Ext-1(1) the Divisional Manager of opposite party on 12-08-2015 directed the complainant to produce - (1) Copy of R.C Book, (2) All cash memos of parts purchased from authorized dealer (3) vouchers and receipted bills of the repairer within 15 days of receipt of Ext-1(1). Complainant is silent about steps taken on receipt of Ext-1(1).
11. Opposite party is also found silent about the fate of the claim lodged by the complainant. When no step was taken by the complainant within the
stipulated period of time on receipt of Ext-1(1), the opposite party Insurance Company ought to have disposed of the claim and inform the complainant accordingly. But the same was not done.
12. In the judgment of United India Assurance Co. ltd., Vs. MKJ Corporation, reported in 1986-89 Consumer 4781, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that a reasonable time of sixty days, would be justified for taking a decision whether a claim requires to be settled or rejected in accordance with the Policy. Delay in disposing the claim itself amounts to deficiency in service. Similarly, in the instant case, inaction on the part of the opposite party in view of the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, amounts to deficiency in service.
12.Point No.(ii) : By filing the complaint before this Forum, complainant has prayed for passing orders for payment of sum assured of Rs.47,764/- and compensation of Rs.30,000/- for mental tension, agony and loss of business. She has also prayed for interest @18% per annum from the date of filing complaint.
13. While discussing the foregoing Point No.(i), we have already noted that the complainant, on receipt of Ext-1(1) failed to produce any document as directed and preferred to remain silent. Complainant in her cross-examination stated “The Scooty had been sold out in the meantime after its repair”. She has not produced any document of repair and or expenditure incurred before the Forum also.She has also failed to produce any document or report of total loss of the vehicle in the accident. In absence of any document, she, in our opinion, is not entitled to the amount of sum assured as prayed for.
14. The deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is found to be for not informing the complainant about the fate of her motor claim lodged. Therefore, having regard to the discussion made in deciding Point No.(i), we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to only a lump sum amount of Rs.5000/- which we deem fit and proper as compensation and cost of litigation. On the otherhand, as on the date of accident the vehicle was under insurance coverage, so the complainant may approach the opposite party with required documents for reimbursement of expenditure incurred for repairing of the vehicle.
ORDER
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. Opp. party is directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five thousand) only to the complainant as compensation and cost of litigation within 30(thirty) days of receipt of copy of the judgment and order.
As on the date of accident the vehicle was under insurance coverage, so the complainant may approach the opposite party with required documents for reimbursement of expenditure incurred for repairing of the vehicle and the opposite party in the event as such shall, within a period of two months,
make reimbursement of such amount as the complainant may be entitled to.
Given under our hands and seal of this Forum this 14th day of Nov.,2018
Dictated and corrected by:
(A.DEVEE) Pronounced & delivered by
President
Dist.Consumer D.R Forum
Sonitpur,Tezpur (A.DEVEE)
President
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
We agree:- Sonitpur,Tezpur
(Sri P.Das) (Smt.S.Bora)
Member Member
