West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/71/2020

Subir Kumar Mal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Subhasis Chatterjee

31 Jul 2024

ORDER

Shri Sudip Majumder- President-in-Charge.

            The complainant/petitioner files this case U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The fact of the case in brief is that the petitioner/complainant, Subir Kumar Mal, S/o. Dhaneswar Mal, permanent resident of Trishula Patty, Bolpur, P.O. and P.S.- Bolpur and Dist.- Birbhum, purchased an insurance policy No. MOP5223089 dated 27/08/2018, vehicle No. WB48C4887 .The policy was valid from 27/08/2018 to midnight of 26/08/2019, IDV Rs. 7,06,751/-.

            It is the further case of the complainant that the vehicle met an accident on 28/07/2019 at about 5.30 am in Ranchi at Angra P.S. and same fact was duly informed to the OP side.

            Thereafter, as per instruction of OP side, the complainant lodged an insurance claim dated 27/08/2019 along with Bill from SWG Car World Rs. 5,94,323/-  dated 05/08/2019.

            OP appointed surveyor and assessed the damage, at Rs. 5,06,931/- and the said surveyor commented as “At the time of accident vehicle was used for hire purpose, confirmed by investigation report. Hence, we may deny the liability.”

            Hence, after finding no other alternative the complainant is compelled to file this case before this Forum/Commission for proper reliefs and prays for:-

 

(Page 1 of 5)

 

 

 

 

1. A direction should be given towards OP members to which the complainant gets ex-showroom price value Rs. 7,50,000/-(approx.) or IDV value Rs. 7,06,751/-.
2. A direction to OP insurance to pay Rs. 50,000/- as harassment cost to the complainant.
3. A direction to OP insurance to pay Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost.
4. Any other relief/reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

OP insurance company stated in point Nos. 5, 6 and 14 of their written version as: “.......Investigator’s conclusion is based upon the written statement provided by Mr. Basudeb Das

and occupant Mr. Chittapriya Das wherein it has been in confirmed by both the personnel in their written statement that vehicle was plying on hire and reward at the time of loss. Copy of Investigation Report dated 09/11/2019 along with statement of Mr. Basudeb and Mr. Chittapriya is marked and annexed as Annexure-D.

That on the basis of Final Survey Report and investigation report and other claim related

documents, the answering respondent company had duly repudiated the claim of complainant by virtue of claim repudiation letter dated 03/01/2020 wherein the answering respondent company had clarified that the “vehicle was used for hire and reward purpose at the time of accident thereby violating the provision of “Limitation as to use” of the policy……

            ……It is submitted that in the case of Suraj Mal Ram V/s United India Ins. Co. Ltd. it was observed that the terms of the contract have to be constructed strictly without altering the nature of the contracting as it may affect the interest of parties adversely. Similarly in the latest case of M/s. INDUSTRIAL PROMOTION & INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD.V/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPNAY LTD. & ANR, on 22 August, 2016, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that as: “9. It is well-settled law that there is no difference between a contract of insurance and any other contract, and that it should be construed strictly without adding or deleting anything from the terms thereof.”

            Ultimately the OP insurance company prayed for dismissal of the case.

            It appears from the case record that the OP insurance company submitted their written version, evidence-in-chief along with documents, written notes on arguments.

Complainant also filed evidence-in-chief and written notes on arguments. Some documents have also been filed by the complainant which werecompared with the original ones. Thereafter, Ld. Advocate for the complainant made oral arguments in support of his case.

           

(Page 2 of 5)

 

 

 

Heard Ld. Advocate for the complainant.

            Considered.

            Perused all the documents.

Points for determination/Issues

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer as per definition of the term ‘Consumer’ of the C.P Act. ?
2. Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Op?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

Point No. 1:

            In this case, the complainant purchased an insurance policy being No. MOP5223089000100 under the OP and as such it can be said that the complainant is the consumer under the OP and the OP is a service provider in view of the C.P. Act.

 Hence, it can be concluded that the complainant is a consumer as per Sec. 2(1)d(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Point No. 2:

            That the complainant’s vehicle met with an accident on 28/06/2019 and the case was filed on 14/10/2020 and as such it can be said that the complaint has filed the case within statutory period in view of the C.P. Act and as such the instant complaint is not barred under the C.P. Act.

Point No. 3:

That the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 28/07/2019 in Ranchi and in its

Consequence, the front side of the vehicle was heavily damaged. That the complainant submitted claim form along with relevant documents in support of his claim before the OP, but the OP did not consider the claim of the complainant and they repudiated the claim on the ground of violation terms and condition of the policy.

            The letter of repudiation on 03/01/2020 is reproduce here……….

            Dear Sir,

                        Ref: Policy No.                       -MOP5223089000100                        -

                        Regn. No.                                -WB48C4887

                        Claim No.                                -PM00784485

                        Date of Accident                    -28/07/2019

            (Page 3 of 5)

 

 

 

 

With reference to the above mention claim, we observe from the claim papers that the vehicle was used for hire and reward purpose at the time of accident thereby violating the provision of ‘Limitation as to use’ of the policy.

            The complainant put the question on questionnaire against evidence on affidavit of OP No. 1 that “have you any money receipt to show that the complainant has received hire charges for his vehicle?”. And the OPW-1 replied on affidavit “No. It may be with the hirer.”

The OP insurance company did not produce those person namely Basudev Das, Chittapriya Das and

Lalon Chandra Das before this Commission to prove their statements. The OP insurance company has failed to produce any sort of documents that the complainant received hire charges from the occupant. Thus, the OP insurance company has failed to prove that the vehicle in question were used as hire purpose.

From the above discussion, this Commission is of the view that the OP insurance company did not agree to pay the cost of repairing as claimed by the complainant and the cause shown by the OP insurance company for repudiation of the said claim is baseless and vexatious one.

It is proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the aforesaid act of the OP members are amounting to deficiency in service as per Sec. 2(1) (g) of C.P. Act, 1986.

Hence, from the above discussion it is proved that the complainant has able to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts.

Point No. 4:

As there is deficiency in service, the complainant is well entitled to get the relief/relieves from the instant case.

Hence, it is,

            O R D E R E D,

                                        that the instant C.C. Case No. 71/2020 be and same is allowed on contest with cost.

OP No. 1/ Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited is directed to pay Rs. 5,94,323/- (Five lakh ninety four thousand three hundred twenty three only) as cost of repairing of the vehicle to the complainant.

          The OP No. 1/ Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited is also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand only) as cost of litigation to the complainant/petitioner.

 

(Page 4 of 5)

 

 

 

 

The entire decree will be complied by the OP member within 45 (Forty five) days from this date of order, failing which entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till its realization.

If the OP members fail to comply the decree, the complainant will be at liberty to put this order to execution in accordance with law.

The instant case is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.