West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/73/2014

Sk. Amjed Ali. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royal Sundaram Allainace Insurance Co. Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jan 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.73/2014                                                                                                  Date of disposal: 30/01/2015                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                             MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                             MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

 For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. A. K. Dutta, Advocate.

 For the Defendant/O.P.S.                       : Mr. P. Sengupta, Advocate.                                  

          

 Sk. Amjed Ali, S/o Sk. Abdul Jabbar, Vill. Kalapat, P.O. Ramjibanpur, P.S. Chandrakona Town, 

 Dist- Paschim Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Sundaram Tower, 45 & 46 Whites Road, Chennai-600014..……………Ops.

          The case of the complainant Sk. Amjed Ali, in short, is that a Maruti Omni vehicle bearing Registration No.WB42P/0116 insured with the Op with its validity from 19/02/2013 to 18/02/2014.  During the valid period of insurance the said vehicle met a road traffic accident resulting full damage.  Claim for damage estimating Rs.1,71,358.17 placed with all relevant documents before the OP Insurance Company.  But the claim was repudiated by letter dated 07/08/2013 on the ground of violation of policy condition referring to the fact that the vehicle was used for hire purpose.  Challenging the contention of the Op, the complainant raised deficiency of service against the Op and prayed for relief as set out in the petition of complaint.  In this connection, some documents namely Certificate of Registration, Tax Token, Driving Licence, Insurance Policy, Letter of Repudiation dated 07/08/2013 and Police Papers. 

          The Op Insurance Company contested the case raising the point that the Insurance Policy does not cover the use of insured vehicle for hiring purpose and the complainant has no cause of action for filing this case and thereby the case should be dismissed.      In this connection, some documents namely Insurance Policy, Private Car Package Policy, Investigation Report, Statement of the complainant disclosing that the vehicle was used for hiring purpose, Police Investigation Report etc. are produced on behalf of Op Insurance Company.

Contd…………..P/2

 

                                                               - ( 2 ) –

 

          Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1)Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?

2)Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?

3)Whether the vehicle in question was used in violation of the Insurance Policy?

4)Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 4:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the vehicle was owned by the complainant. There is no dispute regarding the fact of damaged of the said vehicle during the valid period of Insurance Policy.  So, it is incumbent upon the Op to sanction the payment of the claim.  But the Op has neglected the payment despite necessary claim documents were duly submitted by the complainant.  Thus, the complainant has proved the allegation of deficiency of service against the Op.  In this way Ld. Advocate claims for allowing the case in favourable of the complainant.

              Strong objection raised by the Ld. Advocate in his argument that there is no occasion for holding deficiency of service against the Op since the complainant himself used the vehicle in question for hiring purpose.  In this connection, the Insurance Policy does not cover used for hiring of the insured car.  In order to support the ground the relevant documentary evidence are referred to exclaiming that the complainant himself made his statement that the vehicle was coming from Bardwan with passengers on hire basis.  This fact has already been established by virtue of police investigation.  Thus, there is no cause of action for filing this case nor is any material towards the allegation of deficiency of service against the OP.  As a result, the case sould be dismissed.

              Upon careful consideration of the case together with the submission of respective parties as above, it is evident that the vehicle was used for hiring purpose in violation of the condition of the Insurance Policy.  So, we do not find any ground for allowing the prayer made in the petition of complaint. 

              In view of the facts and circumstances, all the issues are held and decided against the complainant.  Thus, the case should be dismissed.

Contd…………..P/3

 

                                                               - ( 3 ) –

 

               Hence,

                           It is Ordered,    

                                                    that the case be and the same is dismissed  on contest  without cost.

Dictated & Corrected by me

              

         President                          Member                                Member                             President

                                                                                                                                  District Forum

                                                                                                                                Paschim Medinipur.