DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 39 of  2023

 

 

Samrat Kar Bhowmik,

S/O- Sri Manish Kar Bhowmik,

Dhaleswar, Road No.4, P.O.- Dhaleswar,

P.S. East Agartala, District- West Tripura,

Pin- 799007. ...........Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

National Insurance Company Ltd.,

42-Akhaura Road, 

Agartala, Tripura(W),

Pin- 799001.

Represented by: 

The Divisional Manager. ........Opposite Party.

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For  the  O.Ps : Miss Rajasree Purkayastha,

 

 

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

1. Sri Samrat Kar Bhowmik here-in-after called the 'complainant' has filed this complainant against the National Insurance Company Ltd. here-in-after called the 'O.P.' alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. 

1.1 The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No. TR 01AX 0498(Maruti Suzuki Vitara Brezza-ZDI+) which was insured with the O.P. Insurance Co. w.e.f. 04.05.2022 to 03.05.2023 for premium of Rs.20,812/- along with “Nil Depreciation' coverage premium for Rs.7415/-. 

1.2 On 27.12.2022 at about 10.50 P.M. the vehicle met with an accident at Math Chowmuhani. As a result of which the vehicle sustained damage. 

1.3 Intimation was lodged vide East Agartala P.S. G.D. No. 47 dated 27.12.2022. 

1.4 The fact of the accident was intimated to the O.P. Insurance company via Email and formal claim was registered  on 30.12.2022 through Email. 

1.5 The vehicle was sifted to the Jain Udyog, the authorized Maruti Sales and Service Agent in Tripura for necessary repairs which was also intimated to the O.P. and tentative estimate for repair of the damaged vehicle was forwarded to the O.P. through email. 

1.6 Surveyor was appointed by the O.P. and tentative estimate to repair the damages before dismantling the vehicle was shown as Rs.67,134/-  by the O.P. was intimated to the complainant. Documents and photographs of the damaged vehicle were duly submitted by the complainant as sought by the O.P. vide their letter dated 30.12.2022. 

1.7 Thereafter, Jain Udyog again raised one supplementary service estimate for Rs.21485/-. The complainant further purchased one front grill part for Rs.2199/- and another part part for Rs.1570/- from online portal  as Jain Undyog did not have the said parts and the invoices were also sent to the O.P./surveyor by the complainant through whatsapp. 

1.8 Complainant took delivery of the partially repaired vehicle from Jain Udyog on 15.03.2022 paying Rs.80,000/-.   Final claim of the complainant raised as Rs.80,000/- + Rs.2199/- + Rs.1570/- = Rs.83,769/-. 

1.9 The O.P. settled the claim of the complainant at a lesser amount and on 23.03.2023 paid only Rs.53,620/-.  As such an amount of Rs.30,149/- was less paid by the O.P. Insurance Company.

1.10 Legal notice served upon the O.P. on 10.04.2023 claiming the balance amount of Rs.30,149/-.

1.11 The O.P. replied on the same date stating that on scrutiny it transpired that there were two claims reported and settled on 28.10.2022 and 23.11.2022 prior to this incident against the same vehicle and as per Company's Manual on Nil Depreciation cover under Clause 1.2 Exclusions, sub clause 1.3.4 and Clause 1.4 Conditions, sub clause 1.4.1 after two partial loss claims during the policy period 'Nil Depreciation' cover was not admissible for the third claim.

1.12 Hence, this complaint claiming the balance amount which was less paid by the O.P. Insurance company along with compensation and litigation cost.

 

2. The O.P. Insurance company in their written statement denied the allegations of the complainant. It is stated that nil depreciation policy is subject to certain conditions. As per Policy conditions under Clause 1.4.1(under  the heading 'Conditions') of the policy of Nil Depreciation(Add-On to Private Car package Policy) only first two partial loss claims relating to accidents during the policy period  are admissible under Section 1 of the Policy. Since two partial loss claims had already been settled by the O.P. for the said vehicle for the specified year on 28.10.2022 and 23.11.2022 under the said insurance policy, the 3rd partial loss claim with 'Nil Depreciation' benefit  is not applicable. 

3. Both the parties submitted evidence on affidavit and documents. 

 

4. Hearing argument following points re taken up for discussion and decision:-

 

5. For better appreciation policy condition No.1.4 is reproduced below:-

  1.4.3 The Company may cancel the Policy by sending seven days notice by recorded delivery to the insured at insured's last known address and in such event will return to the insured the premium paid less the pro rata portion thereof for the period the Policy has been in force or the Policy may be cancelled at any time by the insured on seven days' notice by recorded delivery and provided no claim has arisen during the currency of the Policy, the insured shall be entitled to a return of premium less premium at the Company's Short Period rates for the period the Policy has been in force. Return of the premium by the company will be subject to retention of the minimum of Rs.100/-(or Rs.25/- in respect of vehicles specifically designed/modified for use by blind/handicapped/mentally challenged persons).” 

 

5.1 So it is luminous that only the first 2 Partial loan claim relating to accident the policy period shall be payable. 

5.2 From the evidence of the complainant at para 12 and 13 in particular it is clear that during the questioned policy period earlier on 2 occasion the owner of the vehicle were indemnified by the Insurance company due to accident.

5.3 During argument also Learned Counsel Mr. Chowdhury fairly admitted this. We fail to agree with the argument of Learned Counsel Mr. Chowdhury that there is nothing in Indian Tariff that in case of Zero Depreciation, first 2 claims only will be allowed because   this is not a question of directory provisions of Indian Motor Tariff rather, it is a basic condition of contract of insurance. We also fail to agree with the argument of Learned Counsel Mr. Choudhury that the Policy condition did not form a part of the certificate of policy which is a basic violation of policy of insurance. It is always advisable that to avoid shortcut such policy condition may form part of the certificate of policy of insurance but it is itself not a fundamental violation of policy condition by the insurance company itself which can be said to be a breach of condition of insurance by the company itself. Therefore, it can not be said to be a violation of Regulation Clause 11 of IRDA (protection of policy holder interest) as it appears to be a directory provision.

6. Hence, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  Hence, the case disposed of, however, without any cost. 

7. Supply copy of this Order to both the parties free of cost.    

 

Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.