West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/179/2017

Smt. Madhumita Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Asim Kumar Dutta

12 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

   Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

                                                                                        Pulak Kumar Singha,Member,

                                                                                                          and

                                                                                           Sagarika Sarkar,Member.

 

Complaint Case No.179/2017.

 

Smt.Madhumita Pal,W/o-Udaychand Pal,at Colonelgola ,P.O.Midnapore, P.S.Kotwali,  Dist.Paschim Medinipur,Pin-721101.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       …………..Complainant.                    

                                                                          -Vs-                                                                                                                       

1.National Insurance Co.Ltd, Kharagpur Branch Office, 1^st Floor,Kusum Building, At Inda, O.T.Road,P.O.& P.S.Kharagpur,Dist.Paschim Medinipur,Pin-721305.

2.Bhandari Automobile, at Jhapetapur, P.O.& P.S. Kharagpur, Dist.Paschim Medinipur, Pin-721305.

                                                                                                    ...……….….Opp. Parties.

                                                   

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

            For the O.P.            : Mr. Anathbandhu Ghosh & Mr. Chandan De, Advocate.

                                                         

                                                                      Date of filing: 17/11/2017                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                         Decided on   : 12/07/2018

                               

ORDER

                          Pulak Kumar Singha :– Complainant files this case u/s 12 of the C.P. Act. In short the case of the complainant is that the complainant and her husband are the owner of a car bearing No.WB/34AG/7068 which was duly insured with O.P.No.1. The said vehicle met with an accident within the State of Jharkhand on 20.10.15, as a result both driver and husband  of complainant died. Complainant informed O.P.No.2 by e-mail

                                                                                                                                         Contd…………...P/2

 

( 2 )

 in respect of accident. Complainant submitted claim along with estimate and other documents before O.P.No.1 on 06.7.2017 but O.P.No.1 repudiated the claim on 30.8.2017. Finding no way complainant appeared before this Forum for getting redressal as per prayer of her complaint.

             O.P.No.1 contested the case by filing Written Objection stating inter alia denying the allegations of complainant, that the complaint is not maintainable, complainant violates the terms and condition of Insurance Policy, this O.P. has no deficiency in service, this O.P. pray for dismissal of complaint.

             O.P.No.2 contested the case by filing Written Version stating inter alia, that this O.P. has no dispute with the facts described in the complaint, the complainant has no claim against this O.P., this O.P. pray for dismissal of complaint.      

                                                            Decision with Reasons.

                 We carefully perused the complaint, written objection, evidence, documents and     considered the arguments advanced by the parties. Fact of the case is that complainant’s vehicle was duly insured with O.P.No.1 and said vehicle was purchased from O.P.No.2. The vehicle in question met with a road accident for which the husband of the complainant died and vehicle was also badly damaged. Complainant lodged claim with documents before O.P.No.1 who repudiated the claim on the ground of delay information in regard to accident.

              Complainant to prove her case adduced evidence by filing examination in chief and tendered herself  as witness of P.W.1. Complainant also adduced another two witnesses as P.W.2 and 3. P.W.2 is an employee of O.P.No.2 who prepared estimate of damaged vehicle and P.W.3 is an employee of licencing authority who produced the certified true copy of driving licence. P.W.1 and 2 are cross-examined by the O.P. Complainant also produced some documents which are marked exibit-1 to 7 and some are marked X and X/1 for identification. O.P. did not adduce any evidence on their behalf.

               It is admitted fact that the vehicle in question of the complainant was duly insured and said vehicle was damaged due to road traffic accident within the State of Jharkhand. It is also admitted that one owner i.e. husband of the complainant died after the accident. O.P.repudiated the claim as that claim lodged before O.P.No.1 after one year three months later and concerned driver had no valid licence. In respect of delay intimation it reveals from the document and evidence, we find that at the time of accident both owners i.e. complainant and her husband and driver Sunil Thakur were in the vehicle. At the time of accident one registered owner (Exibit-I)Uday Chand died on 21.10.2015 as per (Exibit-6) death certificate. Other two persons  i.e. complainant (other owner) and driver was severely injured of that accident and said damaged vehicle was under the custody of Champaran P.S.

Contd…………...P/3

 

                                                                                                 ( 3 )

within the State of Jharkhand. Complainant was under medical treatment about 3 months. It appears from the documents that one relative of complainant intimated O.P.No.2 on 16.11.2015 through e-mail from where the vehicle was purchased. Evidence and other documents it appears that vehicle in question was released on October 2016 from concerned P.S. through court’s order. It appears from exibit-4 and 4/1 that concerned P.S. submitted charge sheet in respect of  accidental vehicle. On 31.10.2016 the damaged vehicle was shifted to the repairing centre of O.P.No.2 with the help of a crain from Jharkhand. It appears from exibit-10 that O.P.No.2 prepared estimate for repairing cost of the damaged vehicle of Rs.6,63,876/- besides tax. Complainant submitted claim with copy of estimate and other documents before O.P.No.1 but O.P.did not pay heed to the claim. In the instant case situation is different, because accident occurred outside State of W.Bengal and one of the owner (husband of complainant) died on the spot and other owner (woman) is under medical treatment for a long period and vehicle was under the police custody at Jharkhand and released the vehicle from court’s order after one year and thereafter vehicle in question was shifted at the garage of O.P.No.2 and after preparing estimate, complainant submitted her claim before O.P.No.1. Moreover we think that in a case of damaged vehicle in accident where police case was registered there is no scope for damaging the investigation of  O.P.No.1. O.P.No.1 should also considered the situation and engaged investigate to inspect the damaged vehicle and prepared estimate but O.P.No.1 rather ignored the claim intimation.

               It reveals that the  engaged driver was valid driving licence(Exibit-9) and also reveals from reply of question under RTI Act 2005 by R.T.O.Midnapore vide Letter Memo No.1006/MV dated-11.5.2018, that Licence No.13782(Prof) was issued on 11.4.1986 in favour of Sunil Thakur  and valid till 20.12.2019 as per record. So there is no question can arise that the engaged driver had no valid licence on the date of accident. So, the ground of repudiation of claim in regard to invalid licence is not at all tenable.

               From the evidence of complainant i.e. P.W.1 in cross examination complainant stated that she intimated the incident to O.P.No.1 within one month  through e-mail. O.P.No.1 did not rebutted her evidence by any cogent evidence except only giving suggestion, which has no evidenciary value.

               In view of the discussions hereinabove and gone through the evidence and documents we find that as per record of  licencing authority driving licence in favour of Sunil Thakur was issued on 11.4.1986 and valid till 20.12.2019 which means that it is a continued validity of driving licence and in view of observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan (Vs) Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. case, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that “Definition of Light Motor Vehicle-includes the Transport Vehicles-Driver

Contd…………...P/4

 

                                                                                             ( 4 )

holding licence to drive light motor vehicle-can drive the Transport vehicle of such class-Separate endorsement is not necessary” in the instant case driver holding licence to drive light motor vehicle. So it cannot be said that driver had no valid and effective licence on the date of occurrence. In the evidence of P.W.1, in cross-examination of O.P.No.1 complainant stated that within one month of the incident intimated by O.P.No.1 through e-mail but O.P.No.1 has failed to rebutted this evidence by producing any evidence.

               It appears from(exibit-3) policy copy that IDV (Insured Declared Value) mentioned Rs.6,40,385/- and vehicles authorized service centre prepared estimated repairing cost Rs.6,63,876/-, moreover complainant is paying Rs.250/- per day as garage rental charges due to non-permission for repairing the vehicle by the O.P.No.1. So, we think, complainant is entitled to get 75% of IDV as non-standard basis.

                 In view of the through discussions hereinbefore we think that complainant proved his case and due to negligence and deficiency in service complainant has been suffering mental pain, harassment and monetary loss, as such complainant is entitled to get relief with compensation.

                The complaint case succeeds.

                               Hence, it is,

                                                Ordered

                         that the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest with cost against O.Ps.

O.P.No.1 is directed to pay Rs.4,80,288/- to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental pain and harassment and to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of order.

     Failure to comply the order O.P.No.1 shall be liable to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as penal cost to be paid to the Legal Aid Fund of this
Forum till full realization.

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

 

              Dictated and Corrected by me

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

                        Member                           Member                                President

                                                                                                        District Forum

                                                                                                     Paschim Medinipur