West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/10/2017

Mr. Benjir Hossein - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

18 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

     Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and 

      Pulak Kumar Singha, Member.

 

Complaint Case No.10/2017

 

             SK. Benjir Hossein, S/o Sk Belayat Hossein, Vill. Balbandighi, P.O. Medinipur,

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

                                                                              Vs.

1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by its manager, 8^th Fr. Himalaya House, 38B, JL Nehru Road, Kolkata, PIN-700071,
2.  Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by its manager, Kharagpur Branch, at Atwal Estate, 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. Mrinal Kanti Chowdhury, Advocate.

 

Decided on: -18/10/2017

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President –Complainant Sk Benjir Hossein  has filed this consumer complaint against the O.Ps, named, above alleging deficiency in service on their part.

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

                 The complainant insured his vehicle bearing no.WB-36B/9034 (Omni Bus) with the O.Ps vide insurance policy bearing no.1516552311000278 covering the period from 16/04/2014 to 15/04/2015 against payment of premium of Rs.3,533/- for any kind of accidental damage in the head of OWN DAMAGE i.e. OD claim.  On 08/08/2015 at 10 a.m. to 11 a.m., the said vehicle of the complainant while returning from Narajole with family members, then the said vehicle suddenly lost it’s control and dashed against

Contd…………………..P/2

 

( 2 )

 roadside tree thereby causing the vehicle totally damage.  The complainant intimated the O.P.-Insurance Company regarding such accident and damage of the vehicle for getting it’s own damage claim and the said intimation was registered as claim no.3115083697.  After receiving the said claim intimation, one surveyor was sent by the O.P.-Insurance Company for inspection of the vehicle and after long enquiry from the side of the Company as well as the surveyor, the O.P.-Insurance Company intimated the complainant vide their letter dated 18/10/2016 that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated.  It is stated that after the accident, the damaged vehicle was sent to authorized service centre named Bhandari Automobiles at Jhapetapur, Kharagpur in the district of Paschim Medinipur for repairing and after inspection of the vehicle, the said automobile company gave an estimate for repairing cost of Rs.1,60,000/- by issuing an estimate bill on repair basis.   Said estimate has already been deposited to the O.P.-Insurance Company along with other required documents but the O.P.-Insurance Company avoided the settlement of the claim and they illegally sent a letter dated 01/08/2016 on absurd plea with a view to repudiate the genuine claim of the complainant. Such act of repudiation by the O.P amounts to gross deficiency in service on their part.  It is further stated that previously the complainant filed another complaint before this Forum which was registered as complaint case no.193/2016 but since it was detected at the time of admission hearing that the Kharagpur Branch Office of the O.P. has not been made party so the said petition of complaint was withdrawn on 22/12/2016 with liberty to re-file the same.  Hence the complaint praying for directing the O.P.-Insurance Company to pay the estimate amount of Rs.1,60,000/- towards repairing cost of the vehicle along with interest @ 12% p.a., an award of Rs.50,000/- towards the garage rent , an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.    

                  Both the opposite parties have contested this case by filling a joint written version.  

                   Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the O.P.-Insurance Company that they repudiated the claim by forwarding a letter dated 21/10/2016 to the complainant for non-submission of the documents i.e. a written statement of the driver, his mobile number, address proof of the driver, medical papers etc.   It is stated that the claimant was bound to provide those documents.  The complainant with influence of bribe submitted false documents with a view to establish the damage of the vehicle.  Before this complaint, the complainant never intimated the occurrence of accident to the O.P.-Insurance Company.  With a wrong intention, the complainant has concocted a false story and has filed a false complaint against the O.Ps after a long period.  It is also stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and that on the night of

Contd…………………..P/3

 

( 3 )

08/08/2015, there was no such occurrence of accident at the alleged place.  It is further stated that the complainant used to ply his vehicle by hiring passengers which is totally illegal and against the terms and conditions of the policy.  The O.Ps therefore claim dismissal of the complaint.    

             To prove his case, the complainant Benjir Hossain has examined himself as PW-1 by tendering a written examination-in-chief supported by affidavit and one Sk Ajad as PW-2.  The documents, relied upon by the complainant, have been marked exhibit 1 to 4 respectively.

 On the other hand, O.P-Insurance Company adduced no evidence.  

 

                                                                 Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?
2. Is the complainant a consumer of the O.P.-Insurance Company?
3. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?    

                   

Decision with reasons

           Point no.1:-

Maintainability of this case has not been challenged at the time of hearing of this case. We also do not find anything to hold that the present case is not maintainable. So, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the present complaint is well maintainable. This point is therefore decided in the affirmative and in favour of the complainant.   

            Point no.2 :

 It is not denied and disputed that the complainant insured his vehicle No.WB-36B/9034, a Omni Bus with the O.P.-Insurance Company vide policy no.1516552311000278 covering from the period from 16/04/2014 to 15/04/2015. So the complainant is definitely a “Consumer” of the O.P.-Insurance Company. This point is therefore decided in favour of the complainant.

          Point No.3 :

                        Deficiency in service has been alleged by the complainant against the O.P.-Insurance Company on the ground that even after submission of claim intimation vide claim no.3115083697  in respect of the policy in question, the O.P.-Insurance Company vide their letter dated 18/10/2016 repudiated the claim of the complainant on false and baseless plea. From Exhibit-4, we find that after accident of the vehicle in question, the complainant

Contd…………………..P/4

 

 

( 4 )

           submitted the claim of insurance before the O.P. which was registered as claim no.3115083697 and along with that claim of insurance he also submitted supporting documents.  Nowhere in their written version, the O.P.-Insurance Company has claimed that after such intimation, they engaged any surveyor for assessing the loss regarding the damage of the vehicle in question. They have also not submitted any survey report. Without engaging any surveyor for assessing the loss, the O.P.-Insurance Company by their letter dated 02/09/2016 (Exhibit-4) asked the complainant for providing them with some documents. In their written objection the O.P.-Insurance Company has also tried to make out a case that since the complainant did not submit all such documents, so they repudiated the claim of insurance. It appears that those documents which were asked for are not so much relevant for assessing the damage of the vehicle.  Moreover the O.P. did not examine any witness to substantiate their said case. We have already stated that after receiving the claim of insurance, the O.P.-Insurance Company engaged no surveyor at all for assessing the damage caused to the vehicle and there is also no such pleadings in the written version filed the O.P.  This inaction alone on the part of the O.P.  clearly establishes deficiency in service on their part in settling and repudiating the claim of insurance. It is therefore held that the O.P.-Insurance Company has caused deficiency in service.

                          This point is therefore decided against the O.Ps. and in favour of the complainant.

         Point No.4 :       

   In view of our above findings, the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs, as prayed for.

                    All the points are accordingly disposed of.

                    In the result, the complaint case succeeds.

                                                 Hence, it is,

                                                                    Ordered,

                               that the complaint case no.10/2017  is allowed on contest with cost against the O.Ps. O.P.s. are directed to pay Rs.1,60,000/- for repairing cost of the vehicle together with interest @8% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. O.Ps.  are further directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.

                 All such payment shall be made within a month from this date of order i.d. 9% penal interest p.a. shall carry over the awarded amount.

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

                 Dictated & corrected by me

                     

                            President                                      Member                               President 

                                                                                                                         District Forum

                                                                                                                     Paschim Medinipur