West Bengal

Kolkata-II(Central)

CC/29/2014

SOVAN SIDDHANTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & OTHERS. - Opp.Party(s)

SELF

02 Jul 2014

ORDER


cause list8B,Nelie Sengupta Sarani,7th Floor,Kolkata-700087.
CC NO. 29 Of 2014
1. SOVAN SIDDHANTA1A-224, SALT LAKE CITY, SECTOR-III, KOLKATA-7090097. ...........Appellant(s)

Versus.
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & OTHERS.D.O-XI, 19, R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA-700001.2. 2) THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.19, R.N MUKHERJEE ROPAD, KOLKATA-700001.3. 3) MR. BIMAN DUTTA19, R.N MUKHERJEE ROPAD, KOLKATA-700001. ...........Respondent(s)



BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MR. Bipin Muhopadhyay ,PRESIDENTHON'ABLE MR. Ashok Kumar Chanda ,MEMBERHON'ABLE MRS. Sangita Paul ,MEMBER
PRESENT :SELF, Advocate for Complainant
Soumendra Nath Dutta, Advocate for Opp.Party

Dated : 02 Jul 2014
JUDGEMENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Order No.                 .

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he purchased one car namely Chevrolet/Beat in the year 2011 and got the policy from the United India Insurance Company Ltd. on payment of premium and it was valid from 15-04-2011 to 14-04-2011 and in the year 2012 the same policy was renewed in the same year under the same terms and condition and said policy was valid till 15-04-2012 to 14-04-2012 and as per terms of the policy complainant was entitled to get 50% no claim bonus on OD Basis. 

          Complainant is an advocate of Calcutta High Court but at the time of running the said policy complainant gave motor policy as per request sof OP2 and handed over the policy along with other documents like RC Book, tax token and a blank cheque to the name of the OP1 with a condition that complainant has got the benefit that he was enjoying the benefit of the policy insurer and it may be mentioning that the OP1 had charged the full premium without giving no claim benefit of 50% intentionally and handed over the policy to the complainant wherefrom complainant came to learn that no benefits were given to the complainant. 

          Thereafter, complainant met the OP2 to refund the excess amount and Mr. Mukherjee, the Officer of Motor Insurance Department and he had handed over a discharge voucher for a sum of Rs.5,561/- wherefrom the complainant came to learn that he will be getting the 50% of the own damage OD premium i.e. a sum of Rs.8,561/- instead of Rs.5,561/- moreover OP1 will issue a certificate that whenever the complainant will purchase any vehicle within 2 years he will be entitled to get 50% discount of premium as per IRDA Rule. But the OP2 refused to issue the said certificate to the complainant.

          In the above circumstances, complainant submits that the act of the OP is deficient to the complainant and also one type of deceiving manner of service and for which the complaint has filed this complaint in passing necessary order directed the OP to pay Rs.8,561/- plus interest, compensation and litigation costs and interest etc.

          On the other hand, OP by filing written statement has alleged that the allegation has made by the complainant is completely false and fabricated and OP submits that they have never approached the complainant to obtain the policy from the OP and never approached to the complainant to obtain a policy from the them and will get premium discount basis and no claim bonus of 50% but only to get illegal benefit from the OP and to suppress the real fact complainant brought this vague allegations against the OP.

          Further OP submits that as per statement of complaint as per Para 4A the policy under United India Insurance upto 14-04-2012 whereas new policy obtained from the OP is valid from 15-04-2013 to 14-04-2014 in respect of Chevrolet/Beat Car, which was purchased in the year 2011 but no explanation was given in the claim petition.  The OP further submits that the complainant sold the said car on 27-05-2013 at a price of Rs.2,15,000/- without any intimation to the OP that policy was obtained from 15-04-2013 from the OP and OP sold the car only on 27-05-2013 therefore, the said fact suppressed the OP and that fact was suppressed to the OP for the purpose of illegal gain and without any valid document and so OP denies and disputes the allegation of the complainant.  Moreover OP has alleged that the allegation of the complainant that OP failed to issue certificate if he purchased any vehicles within 2 years and who will be entitled to get bonus 50% of premium as per IRDA Rule but OP denied and disputes such allegation of the complainant and to cover up his own laches and violation of policy conditions and the policy and accordingly OP submits the allegation of deficiency and negligence of service is completely false and fabricated and in the circumstances OP prayed for dismissal of this case.

Decision with Reasons

On careful study of the complaint including the written version and also considering the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties it is clear that complainant had one insurance policy in respect of his Chevrolet/Beat Car of the year 2011 and that policy was taken from United India Insurance Company Ltd. and it was continued up to 14-04-2013.  Thereafter, complainant obtained the present new policy from National Insurance Company Ltd. on and from 15-04-2013 to 14-04-2014 and previous policy of United India Insurance expired on 14-04-2013.  In the complaint complainant has admitted that he sold away the said car on 27-05-2013 that policy was obtained just on 15-04-2013 and this factor has been disclosed in the complaint.  Moreover, complainant before selling the said car did not inform the OP or did not obtaining any permission before selling the said car at a price of Rs.2,15,000/- that the policy in respect of the said car was valid from 15-04-2013 t0 14-04-2014 but fact remains at the time of opening the policy OP after going through the policy conditions and on the basis of the approach of the complainant for Rs.8,561/- as own damage claim of the car OP paid Rs.8,561/- as permissible under the policy condition.  Another factor is that in respect of the said car there was valid insurance policy from 15-04-2012 to 14-04-2014 and when he has sold away the said car within one month and 13 days from the date of opening the said policy then it was the duty on the part of the complainant to report the matter to the OP for getting such benefit for cancelling the said policy on and from the date of his sale to other person but that was not reported.

          Complainant has also failed to prove by any cogent document of the present policy that as per policy condition complainant was entitled to get 50% no claim bonus from the OP but truth is that complainant ultimately reported prior to filing of this case that he sold away the said vehicle at a price of Rs.2,15,000/- and he has prayed for return of premium after taking of premium on pro rata basis but OP remained silent.  In this regard we have gone through the evidence and materials of OP wherefrom it is found that after selling of the said car complainant reported the matter but before that he did not secure any permission from the OP or did not report that he shall have to sell it at a price of Rs.2,15,000/-.  So, in the circumstances, we are convinced to hold that complainant practically suppressed the matter of selling the car to the OP prior it’s selling and no permission was sought for by the OP insurance company in this regard which is also admitted fact.  It is also true that complainant already got Rs.5,561/- as no claim bonus and that has been received by the complainant by signing onpremium refund intimat6ion voucher.  So, considering all the above facts and circumstances it is found that complainant has miserably failed to prove by any document of National Insurance Company in respect of the present policy that complainant is entitled to any amount as per the policy conditions of the OP as prayed for.  So, in the circumstances, we find that the matter should be properly decided by the OP and OP shall have to report to the complainant in respect of his alleged claim and decided the same finally and result may be sent to the complainant but we are unable to decide the same in view of the fact no terms and condition of the policy as issued in favour of the complainant with a validity period from 15-04-2013 to 14-04-2014 is produced by the complainant.  So, we are directing the OP to settle the dispute within two months from the date of this order and detail report in this regard for final disposal of the complainant’s claim shall be reported to the complainant and also shall be filed before this Forum as compliance of this order of this Forum.

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP but without any cost.

          OP is hereby directing to decide the claim of the complainant on proper merit and by showing the terms and conditions of the policy and in details the matter shall be reported after proper decision to the complainant by Registered Post with A/D and also such a report shall be submitted before this Forum by the National Insurance Company as compliance of the order by this Forum within 45 days from the date of this order and if it is not complied in that case penalty shall be imposed for non-compliance of the Forum’s order and proceeding may be started as per Section 27 of the C.P. Act.

 

 


[HON'ABLE MR. Ashok Kumar Chanda] MEMBER[HON'ABLE MR. Bipin Muhopadhyay] PRESIDENT[HON'ABLE MRS. Sangita Paul] MEMBER