West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/115/2016

Tarun Kumar Mondal - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Pulak Kumar Singha

and

Sagarika Sarkar, Member

   

Complaint Case No.115/2016

 

Tarun Kumar Mondal, S/o-Prem Chand Mondal,

Vill-Nichka, P.O.-Panchra,

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

Versus

1. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Midnapore Divisional Office, Station Road, Dist-Paschim Medinipur
2. Bank of India, Midnapore Branch,  Kshudiramnagar,

      Midnapore Town, P.S.-Kotwali, P.O. Midnapore,

      Dist- Paschim Medinipur, Pin-721101    ……………….Ops.

 

For the Complainant:  Mr. Ashim Kumar Dutta, Advocate.

For the O.P.             :  Mr. Anathbandhu Ghosh & Mr. Swapan Kumar Bhattacharya,  

                                Advocate.                     

                                                                    Decided on: - 18/07/2017                             

                               

ORDER

                         Sagarika Sarkar, Member – This instant case is filed u/s-12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 by Tarun Kumar Mondal alleging deficiency in service on the part of the above mentioned O.Ps.

Contd………..P/2

                                                                                     

                                           

                                       ( 2 )

                   Case of the complainant, in brief, is that being an unemployed youth the complainant in order to earn his livelihood by plying vehicle purchased a  truck bearing no.WB33C/6987 with the financial assistance of the Bank of India which impleaded as O.P. no.2 herein. The complainant has his said vehicle insured with the national Insurance Co. Ltd. Which is impleaded O.P. no.1 herein vide policy no. 153800/31/15/6300002126 which was enforce on and from 27/07/2015 to 26/07/2016. It is stated by the complainant that the complainant used to park the said vehicle at night at Radhakrishna filling station of Munsipatua, P.S.-Kotwali but on 16/12/2016 he found that at previous night some unknown miscreant had stolen four tires and four rims of the said vehicle value of which was assessed as Rs.1,10,900/-. The complainant has further stated that on 16/12/2016 he informed about the said theft to the office of the O.P. no.2 who also informed the same to the office of the O.P. no.1 requesting the O.P. no.1 for enquiry into the matter stated. It is further stated by the complainant that he  himself lodged a complaint with the Kotwali police station in respect of which the a criminal case having no.1346/2015 dated 16/12/2015 was started and after thorough investigation a final report was submitted before the Ld. C.J.M., Paschim Medinipur. The complainant has further stated that subsequently a surveyor namely  Pradip Kumar Shawengaged for spot survey and  as such the complainant handed over all relevant papers along with the bill for purchasing tires and rims to the surveyor and as per advice of the surveyor purchased four tires and rims.  It is the specific allegation of the  complainant that even after conducting through survey of  the said insured vehicle the O.P.-Insurance Co. Ltd. repudiated the claim on 26/07/2016 on the plea of the  terms and conditions of Motor Insurance policy the partial theft claim was not covered by the  policy. According  to the complainant such act on the part of the  O.P.-Insurer is illegal and the  same is an example of deficiency in service  on the part of the O.P.-Insurer.  Accordingly the complainant has prayed for direction  upon the  O.P. no.1 to pay Rs.1,10,900/- along with cost for harassment with interest.

            The O.Ps.  appeared and contested the case by filing separate written statement.

            In the w/s filed by the O.P.-Insurance Co. all the material allegations as made out in the petition of complaint are  denied save and except which are on record stating interalia  that the complaint case is not maintainable since  the complainant is not a consumer and the  complaint is barred by limitation,  estoppels, acquiescence and waiver. It is the specific defence of the O.P.-Insurer that as per provision of the own

Contd………..P/3

                                             

                                            

                                           ( 3 )

 damage  clause under motor insurance act which is applicable to the  policy in question,  the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured against loss of or damage  to accessories  by burglary, house breaking or theft unless the vehicle is stolen at the same time  and as such the claim submitted by the complainant has been repudiated.  According to the O.P.-Insurance Co. there is no deficiency on the part of them in providing service and therefore, the complaint case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

             The O.P.-Bank by filing w/s has stated that the Bank has been impleaded  unnecessarily as no relief has been sought against the Bank by the complainant.

             Parties declined to adduced evidence.

             In course of hearing Ld. Advocate for the complainant has submitted the insurance company insured the vehicle receiving amounts for premium paid by the complainant the  insurance policy  was inforce at the point of time  of occurrence of theft of four tires and four rims and therefore the insurer is liable to disburse the amount as was spent by the  complainant for purchasing the same.

                     Ld. Advocate for the O.P. no.1 has submitted that the insurance company rightly repudiated the claim made  by the complainant since as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy the insurer is not  liable to pay for loss of accessories of the vehicle where as the vehicle has not been stolen as a whole.  

           The complainant annexed photostat copies of Blue Book, Insurance Policy, letter issued by Bank of India, copy of FIR etc. to the petition of complaint.

Points for determination.

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer under the O.P.-Insurance Company ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as claimed ?    

Decisions with reasons.

             Point No.1.

The Complainant availed service provided by the O.P. no.1 in respect of insurance of the vehicle owned by him paying  consideration amount in the form of premium.

Further the complainant used to ply the said vehicle for earning his  livelihood by way of self employment. Therefore  it cannot be considered within the domain of  commercial purpose.

 Hence the complainant is considered as consumer under the O.P. Insurance Company.

 Point no.1 decided accordingly.

Contd………..P/4

                                             

                                                                                        ( 4 )

               Point No.2.

Admittedly, the complainant has  his vehicle insured under the O.P.-Insurance  under certain terms and consideration.

The complainant has stated that four tires and rims  of the insured vehicle have been stolen by the unknown miscreants for which he had to purchase the same  by spending Rs.1,10,900/-. The complainant has reiterated that the O.P.-Insurer is liable to disburse the amount in favour of the complainant since the vehicle was insured by them.

On perusal of the copy of insurance policy it appears that the policy contains the clause Limitation as to use under which it is stated the policy covers use under a permit within the meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 or  such a carriage falling sub section-66 of the Motor Vehicle Act-1988. The policy does not cover use  for (a) Original racing, (b) pace making, (c) reliability trails and (d) speed testing.

Since the policy covers under the Motor Vehicle Act, it is to determine whether such claim is admissible.

 As per provision of own damage  section of the Motor insurance Act Loss of or damage to accessories by  burglary, house breaking or theft unless the vehicle is stolen at the same time is under an additional exclusion clause in respect of liability on the part of the Insurance Company to make payment.

However, the instant case loss of accessories (i.e. four tires and rims) has taken place where as the vehicle has not been stolen.

It is therefore, evident that as per provision of the own damage  section of the Motor insurance Act, the insurance company is not liable to pay for lost accessories (i.e. four tires and rims). In other words the complainant is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

Point no. 2 is decided accordingly.

In the result, the complaint case does not succeed.

                            Hence, it is,

                                                           ORDERED

                                                           that consumer complaint case being no.115/2016 is hereby dismissed but considering the circumstances without cost.       

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

                Dictated and Corrected by me

                        Sd/- S. Sarkar                              Sd/- P.K. Singha                       Sd/-B. Pramanik.

                             Member                                        Member                                     President

                                                                                                                                 District Forum

                                                                                                                              Paschim Medinipur