West Bengal

Siliguri

31/S/2013

MRS. MAYNA DEVI AGARWAL, - Complainant(s)

Versus

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE - Opp.Party(s)

12 Jun 2015

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

 

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 31/S/2013.                DATED : 12.06.2015.       

 

 

BEFORE  PRESIDENT           : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                       President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

 

 

                      MEMBER           : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA.

 

 

COMPLAINANT             : MRS. MAYNA DEVI AGARWAL,

                                                            W/O Late Sankarlal Agarwal,

                                                                          Vill. & P.O.- Barnish, P.S.- Maynaguri,

                                                                          Dist.- Jalpaiguri, PIN – 735 224. 

 

 

O.Ps.           1.                 : ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE

                                                              INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.                   

                                                              “Milenium City”, IT Park,

  Unit No. T-2-2A, Tower-II, Plot No.

  DN-62, Sector-V, Salt Lake,

        Kolkata – 700 091.

           

2.                     : ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE 

                                      INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

                                                                          Having its local office at- Sree Radha 

                                                                          Apartments, Shop No.4, 3^rd Floor,

                                                                          Iscon Mandir Road, P.O. + P.S.- Siliguri,

                                                                          PIN – 734 001.

 

                                                                                                                                                                       

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      : Sri Ashim Chakraborty, Advocate.

 

FOR THE OPs                          : Sri Hirak Barman, Advocate.

 

 

 

 

 

J U D G E M E N T

 

 

The crux of the case can be summarized as follows :-

The petitioner Mrs. Mayna Devi Agarwal purchased a vehicle bearing No.WB-73 C/2569, and the vehicle was insured with the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. from 24.10.2011 to 23.10.2012.  On 08.01.2012 the vehicle met with an accident and got damaged.  Police case was started for reckless driving and still pending.  Claim was submitted as per bill given by garage authority.  The Insurance

 

Contd……P/2

-:2:-

 

 

Company did not allow the petitioner.  The Claim Officer of Calcutta office issued letter to this petitioner wanting some papers within seven days.  The petitioner submitted all the papers on several occasions.  The petitioner got a letter from the Insurance Company on 24.09.2012 repudiating the claim.  The claim was closed due to non-submission of documents.  Legal notice was served to the Insurance Company on 01.10.2012, but no result.  The Insurance Company caused deficiency in service.  Hence, this claim to pay the sum as per prayer in para-16 of the complaint. 

The OP/Insurance Company appeared and filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations raised by the complainant.

OP contended that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction of this case.  The OP appointed surveyor after getting claim form.  The licensed Surveyor submitted report (Exibit-3).  The principle points against the claim are that the vehicle was registered as goods vehicle, but at the time of accident, the vehicle was carrying 20 – 22 passengers for a picnic party.  As such the complainant violated the provision by carrying 22 unauthorized persons violating the limitation clause regarding ‘Limitation as to use’.  It is contended that accordingly, the claimant is not entitled to get any compensation as per Motor Vehicles Act.  It is also contended by the OP that the complainant did not file the essential documents before them for consideration of claim.  Accordingly, for non-submission of required documents, the claim was closed.

 

Points for consideration

 

1.       Whether there was an accident of the vehicle of complainant ?

2.       Whether the complainant has proved that there was deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the OPs ?

3.       Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

 

Contd……P/3

-:3:-

 

 

To prove this case, the complainant has filed the following documents :-

1.       Copy of policy schedule.

2.       Copy of Premium computation table.

3.       Certificate of Insurance.

4.       One reminder letter issued by claim officer dated 17.09.2012.

5.       One letter issued by Officer Motor Claims dated 24.09.2012. 

6.       Copy of legal notice with postal receipt.

7.       One copy of bill issued by Dhupguri Automobiles. 

8.       One copy of FIR. 

 

OPs have filed the following documents :-

1.       Policy Schedule. 

2.       Premium Computation Table.

3.       Certificate of Insurance.

4.       Commercial Vehicles Package Policy. 

5.       Motor (Final) Survey Report. 

 

Decision with reason

 

Complainant has adduced oral evidence-in-chief.

OP has also filed evidence-in-chief.

Complainant has stated the facts laid down in the petition. 

OP has filed counter affidavit only. 

From the documents of complainant, it appears that the complainant was the owner of a vehicle and that accident took place and that police case has been filed.  It is admitted position.  OP admits all the existence position of the vehicle including insurance and accident.  OP appointed one surveyor who has filed report (Exihit-3) dated 30.05.2012.  The surveyor’s report perused between the lines.  The surveyor report has

 

Contd……P/4

-:4:-

 

 

narrated all the ingredients and all the facts brought out by the complainant in his case, including the place where the accident took place, Police report, third party particulars, cause and nature of accident, verification of the documents, RC document found in order.  The calculation of damage of the vehicle has also been laid down in page 2 of Surveyor’s report.  This Xerox copy of the report has been filed by the OP, but the main contention of the OP is that the complainant has violated the limitation as to use of the Insurance Policy. 

Considered the whole submission of ld advocates of both sides.  In the light of materials reflected in the complaint, reflected in the OP’s petition, and mainly in surveyor’s report. 

It is crystal clear that damage was due to road accident.  The vehicle was insured.  The OP Insurance Company is liable to give the damage as per spirit of the Insurance Act, which culminated such kind of Insurance Company.

Accordingly, this Forum after a deep deliberation over the material and prayer of the complainant and spirit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is of opinion that the complainant is entitled to get damages as per prayer in accordance with Provision of Section 14 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get repairing charges of damaged vehicle, along with interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of institution of this case, till full payment. 

The Insurance Company had duty to pay the damage as soon as they got the claim, but that has not been done.  In spite of delaying has been caused in different pretext causing deficiency of service to the complainant, who earns his livelihood by this vehicle.  So, the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment. 

 

Contd……P/5

-:5:-

 

 

The complainant is also entitled to get litigation cost.  If the OP would have given the amount, the complainant would not come before this Forum.  So, it is the OP Insurance Company who has brought the petitioner before this Forum for claiming compensation.  So, the OP must give litigation cost to the complainant from whom money has been taken by the OP as insurance policy.  So, the complainant is entitled to get litigation cost for 28 days including other professional fees.  For 28 days they have incurred expenses Rs.(28 X 200/-) = Rs.5,600/-, and for other professional fees of Rs.5,000/- totalling Rs.10,600/-. 

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence, it is

                     O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.31/S/2013 be, and the same is hereby allowed on contest.

The complainant is entitled to get repairing charges of Rs.1,04,422/- for his damaged vehicle from the OPs, along with interest at the rate12 percentage per annum from the date of institution of this case, till full payment.

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- from the OPs for his mental pain, agony and harassment. 

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.10,600/- for litigation cost including other professional fees. 

The OPs, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to pay Rs.1,04,422/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for repairing charges of his damaged vehicle within 45 days of this order. 

The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for his mental pain, agony and harassment within 45 days of this order.

 

 

Contd……P/6

-:6:-

 

 

The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.10,600/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for litigation cost including other profession fees within 45 days of this order.

Failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate 9 percentage per annum from the date of this order till realization.

In case of default of payment as ordered above, the complainant is at liberty to execute this order through this Forum as per law. 

Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.

 

 

 -Member-                                                        -President-