: J U D G M E N T :
This is a case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts of the case to put in a nutshell, are as below:-
The complainant, Sajal Halder, purchased an insurance policy being No. MOP 1185771 for his vehicle No. WB-52N-4149. The policy was valid from 15.02.2012 to 14.02.13. On 15.10.2012 the vehicle of the complainant met an accident with a truck causing damaged & financial damaged. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint before C.J.M. Burdwan under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C & Ld. CJM sent the complaint to Burdwan P.S. for investigation & on the basis of the said complaint Burdwan P.S. started a case being No. 107/13 on 22.01.2013 under Section 279/427 I.P.C. The complainant then sent the information with all relevant documents regarding the accident of his vehicle to the opposite party to settle the policy benefit. Accordingly the Insurance Company settled the claim of Rs. 88,778/-. But the complainant did not get the insurance amount as yet. Hence the complainant filed this case praying for Rs. 88,778/- with interest & compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.
The OP No. 1, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. has contested this case by filing a written version on 27.03.2014 denying all the allegations made by the complainant. The main contentions of the OP are as below:-
The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. The complaint is not maintainable for lack of territorial jurisdiction. It is admitted by the OP No. 1 that the complainant took a motor policy bearing No. MOP1185771000100. The policy was valid from 15.02.2012 to 14.02.13 in respect to OMNI vehicle No. WB 52 N 4142. The complainant made a claim for accidental damages for his vehicle on 15.10.12 & opposite party No. 1 appointed a surveyor. As per the report of the surveyor the OP 1 settled the claim amount of Rs. 71,210/- to the OP No. 2 as the vehicle was left for repair with OP No. 2. Therefore the claim of the complainant is not maintainable as the OP No. 1 has already settled the claim on cashless basis to the OP No. 2 as per IRDA norms. So the claim of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
OP No. 2 did not contest this case.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Point No. 1: Is the complainant a consumer?
- Point No. 2: Is the claim of complainant justified?
- Point No. 3: Have the OPs any fault or deficiency in service?
- Point No. 4: Is the complainant entitled to get any relief?
REASOND DECISIONS
For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.
It is admitted in pleadings that the petitioner is a policy holder of OP & hence he is a consumer.
In written version dtd. 27.03.14 at Para-3 Sonic Surgical’s case has been referred to oust the jurisdiction of this Forum located in the district of Nadia. It is argued the policy was purchased from Calcutta Office & Nadia Forum has no jurisdiction to try the address of the complaint is under P.S. Karimpur, Dist. Nadia, D.L. was issued from Nadia Authority. The vehicle was also registered in Nadia District (vide Annexure – 10, 12). The hypothecation was also made in Krishnagar, Nadia. The vehicle in question is Omni purchased from OP No. 2, Authorized Maruti Dealer, Bhandari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., 4 Lala Mohan Ghosh Road, Sasthitala, Krishnagar, Nadia at a cost of Rs. 2,81,000/-. Sajal Haldar, the complainant was the purchaser vide money receipt No. X-701 dtd. 05.03.12, i.e., the delivery date of the vehicle in question. The money receipt also gives the chassis and engine numbers (the chassis No. 1361905, Engine No. 4483625 and model – Maruti Omni E MPI STD B).
We have gone through the case law report in II (2014) CPJ 180 (NC) wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has held that the amendment of the complainant should not be allowed if not made at the earliest stage.
We have meticulously gone through the original documents annexed in the record along with the photocopies we find that a case under Section 279 /427 IPC was started vide FIR No. 107/13 dtd. 22.01.13 on the direction of the CJM, Burdwan by Sadar P.S. Burdwan. GR case No. is 430/13. The money receipt is Annexure – 13 issued by Bhandari Auto Mobiles and the apportioned amount was 79,778/-. The said Bhandari Auto Mobiles received Rs. 9000/- on 28.12.12 from the complainant. The customer ID of the complainant is I118071243 vide Annexure – 13, 14 and 15 etc. Bhandari Auto Mobiles of Howrah got the total billing amount as 88,778/- settling that the matter with the Insurance Company that means the OP vide Annexure – 25 dtd. 24.04.13.
It is the convention of each and every authorized dealer to give access to the insurance officials to their office so that the car and purchaser are not harassed anywhere. It is also convention of the Insurance Company to deploy the insurance agents at the sales counter / the office of authorized dealers. Annexure – 23 also goes to show that the MV Department, C/o DM, Nadia issued the smart card in the name of the complainant vide Annexure – 23.
It is admitted position that Royal Sundaram, Insurance Company sold the policy to the complainant and received the premium as per the insurance policy. The original certificate of Insurance in the name of the complainant has also been filed. The insurance policy No. is MOP 1185771000100. The total premium paid was Rs. 8,125/- per year. The engine No. and car No. tally with the annexed documents. No objection was raised at the time of survey and settlement of the claim when the damaged vehicle was kept for repair at the office of Bhandari Auto Mobiles at Howrah.
All the points pleaded by the complainant have been admitted by the OP Insurance Company in the written version filed on 27.03.2014 except the jurisdiction point.
It is the convention of the authorized dealer to arrange for payment of insurance policy to the OP and also Motor Vehicles Department at the time of purchase of the vehicle. The policy was valid when accident took place vide period of insurance 15th February, 2012 to midnight 14th February, 2013. The vehicle in question that means WB 52 N 4149 vehicle met with an accident on 15.10.12 at 5.30 am. The date is well covered with the insurance policy.
Only in the written argument on the basis of the OP No. 1 filed on 31st August, 2015 the maintainability point was challenged on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. It is admitted that OP No. 1 appointed on I.R.D.A. licence surveyor for inspection of the damaged vehicle and the loss was assessed at Rs. 71,173/-. Thus, we hold that the part of commercial transaction including insurance payment was done within the jurisdiction of Dist. Nadia and hence, the case is not hit by Sonic Surgical case.
The affidavit evidence and replies to the interrogatories support the case of the complainant.
Thus, the arguments of the opposite party No. 1 that the complainant was not consumer with the OP No. 2 does not hold much water.
Hence, all the points are decided accordingly with the observation that the claim of the complainant is justified as the OP No. 1 has fault and deficiency in service. Naturally the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for. The amount assessed by the surveyor is Rs. 71,113/- and the complainant is entitled to get that amount and not the claim amount. Because the original amount is generally paid to the repair by his owner of the car. Hence, all the points are disposed of.
Hence,
Ordered,
That, the case CC/2013/125 be and the same is allowed on contest against OP No. 1 and ex parte against OP No. 2. The OP No. 1, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to pay Rs. 71,113/- to the petitioner, Sajal Haldar within one month failing which OP No. 1 shall bear interest of 8% p.a. on the awarded amount from 30.12.15 till the date of realization. Compensation of Rs. 1000/- is also awarded and to be paid by the above date fixed. No cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
