West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/63/2016

Sri Dwijen Ghosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Suvojit Dutta

19 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik,President,

and

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

   

Complaint Case No.63/2016

                                                       

Sri Dwijen Ghosh, S/o-late Binod Ghosh of Inda, Ramkrishnapally,

Kharagpur,  Dist-Paschim Medinipur…………..……Complainant.

Versus

 

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. 19, Reliance Centre,

Walchand Harichand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001 &

another……………………………..…..Opp. Parties

    Order No.6.                                                                                

   dt. 19/07/2016.

                  The case record is put up before us for passing order.

                  Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows:-

                  The complainant purchased a KTM RC 390 Motor Cycle from Amit Motors having their showroom-cum-workshop located at O.T. Road, P.S. Kharagpur (T), District: Paschim Medinipur and he paid a sum of Rs.2,22,169/- as consideration money for the said motor cycle.  The said dealer of KTM Motor Cycle has got tie-up with the opposite party for insurance of the said vehicle and Aveek Tulsian is the firsthand underwriter of the said Insurance Company and he is also the proprietor/partner of Amit Motors. At the time of purchase of  the said motor cycle, the dealer of KTM Motor Cycle duly received a sum of Rs.5,422/- as premium towards the insurance of the said motor cycle and the said vehicle was duly insured by the opposite party under policy no.1516552312007278 on the cover note with effect from17/07/2015 to 16/07/2016.  Thereafter, the complainant duly got his motor cycle registered by Registering Authority, Paschim Medinipur, vide Registration no.WB-34/AR-2923.  The son of the

Contd………………….P/2

 

                                                                                                         ( 2 )

 complainant namely Sourav Ghosh had good friendship with Prasanta Kumar Barik son of Bishnupada Barik and he is a frequent visitor in the house of the complainant.  Said Prasanta Kumar Barik  holds a valid driving license.  On 12/10/2015, Sourav Ghosh wanted to visit some person in Salua and Prasanta Kumar Barik agreed to drive the motor cycle and to take Sourav Ghosh, son of the complainant to Salua.  The complainant allowed Prasanta Kumar Barik to drive the motor cycle alongwith his son for going to Salue as Prasanta Kumar Barik had valid driving license.  Accordingly Prasanta Kumar Barik by driving the said motor cycle took the son of the complainant to Salua and while they were returning from Salua, then a motor cycle coming from opposite direction in a high speed dashed against the motor cycle of the complainant at Gopali Ashram.  Prasanta Kumar Barik fortunately did not sustain any injury but the son of the complainant sustained injuries all over his body and his right leg was broken and he was immediately hospitalized at Hijli Rural Hospital on 12/10/2015 and on the same day he was shifted to South Eastern Railway Main Hospital, Kharagpur and after treatment, he was released on 19/10/2015.  Thereafter, he remained  in bed ridden condition at home and the complainant being the only mail member of his house, apart from his bed ridden son, had to be engaged on round the clock basis to attend his injured son.  His son was again re-admitted in South Eastern Railway Main Hospital on 29/10/2015 and he was discharged therefrom on 31/10/2015 and thereafter he was in bed ridded condition at home.  Immediately after the occurrence, a specific case was registered on 16/10/2015 in Kharagpur Local Police Station by one Sabin Roy which was not the version of the complainant vide case no.559/2015 dated 16/10/2015 and the said motor cycle was taken away from the spot to Kharagpur Local Police Station where it was lying in seized condition.  Despite the fact that his injured son  was in bed ridded but the complainant had been to the office of the opposite party on several occasions and verbally intimated to them about the said accident but they did not pay any heed to the same.  Finding no other alternative, the complainant was compelled to sent a letter under registered post with A/D on 09/11/2015 to the opposite party nos.1 to 3 intimating them as regards to the claim and all the letters were received by the opposite parties nos.2 and 3.  Despite receipt of the said letter, the opposite parties did nothing to register the claim of the complainant and therefore the complainant sent a lawyer’s notice dated 19/12/2015 under registered post with A/D to the opposite parties and the said letters were also received by them.  The opposite parties by a letter dated 16/02/2016 addressed to the complainant  asked him to submit a list of documents and from that letter, the complainant came to know that his claim has been registered as claim no.3116018116.  Complainant handed over all documents as asked for to the opposite parties.  Thereafter opposite party nos.1 to 3 appointed Proventure India, 336, Sahid Kshudiram Bose Sarani,  Kalindi, Kolkata-700 030 as their investigator and the said investigator by a letter dated 20/02/2016 demanded from the complainant the contact no. and details of the driver Prasanta Kumar Barik, written statement of the son of the complainant and written statement regarding the accident and the cause of delay.  Opposite parties also demanded those documents by their letters dated 16/03/2016 and 26/03/2016.  The complainant by his letter dated 04/04/2016,  gave a reply by communicating the written statement of the

Contd………………….P/3

 

                                                                                                           ( 3 )

 driver Prasanta Kumar Barik and the son of the complainant   by registered post alongwih the statements.  Thereafter the opposite parties by their letter dated 18/04/2016 repudiated the said claim illegally, arbitrarily and baselessly alleging that the intimation was given after  114 days from  the date of accident which is out and out a false and fabricated statement.  Accident took place on 12/10/2015 and the claim was intimated by registered letter on 09/11/2015.  The complainant is entitled to the sum assured alongwith interest calculated @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident till payment with quarterly resting.  It is stated that the act of the opposite party–Insurance Company in repudiating the claim of the complainant on flimsy ground is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and the same tantamounts to deficiency in service on their part.  Hence, the complaint praying for directing the opposite party-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.1,24,219/- towards repairing cost of the vehicle and for an award of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and for interest and litigation cost.

                   Notices of this case were duly served upon all the four opposite parties but in spite of receipt of such notices, none of the opposite parties appeared to contest this case and as such the case was ordered to be heard ex parte against the opposite parties.  Hence, the ex-parte hearing.

                 To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his written examination-in-chief supported by affidavit and he was also examined on oath as PW-1. During his evidence, few documents were marked as Exhibit 1 to 37 respectively and few other documents were marked as x-series for identification.

                     In his written examination-in-chief, supported by affidavit, complainant  Sri Dwijen Ghosh has fully corroborated his case of the petition of complaint.  Exhibit 1 to 37 also support the version of PW-1.  So in view of the evidence of PW-1 and the documentary evidence, remaining unchallenged, it is held that the complainant’s case is proved and he is entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for.

                                  Hence, it is,

                                                      ORDERED,

                                                                           that the complain case no.63/2016 is allowed ex parte with cost against all the four opposite parties.  Opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,24,219/- to the complainant towards repairing of the vehicle in question along with 12% interest on the said sum of Rs. 1,24,219/- w.e.f.  the date of filing of this case till payment.  Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.  All such payment shall be made within a month from this date of order.              

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

Dictated and Corrected by me

        Sd/-B. Pramanik.                             Sd/- D. Sengupta.                            Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

               President                                         Member                                           President

                                                                                                                           District Forum

                                                                                                                        Paschim Medinipur