West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/174/2017

Smt. Krishna Mondal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Asim Kumar Dutta

31 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

   Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

                                                                                        Pulak Kumar Singha,Member,

                                                                                                             and

                                                                                            Sagarika Sarkar,Member.

 

 Complaint Case No.174/2017.

 

                                                        Smt. Krishna Mondal, W/o-Buddhadeb Mondal,

                                                         Vill-Jadbapur, P.O.-Banka & P.S.-Chnadrakona,                                                                

                                                                             Dist.-Paschim Medinipur                                                                                                                                                                                                                    …………..Complainant.

                                                               -Vs-                                                                                                                      

1)  Royalsundram General Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by its manager, Registered Office, 21,  Patullos Road, Chennai -600002,

2)  Royalsundram General Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by its manager, Atwal Estate Building Tower, 1^st floor at O.T. Road near KGP College, Kharagpur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur.

                                                                                                                         ...……….….Opp. Parties.

                                                   

              For the Complainant: Mr. Ashim Kumar Dutta, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Pinaki Sengupta, Advocate.

                                                         

                                                                        Date of filling : 15/11/2017                                                                                                        

                                                                          Decided on   : 31/07/2018

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik,President:–This consumer complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act has been filed by the complainant Smt. Krishna Mondal, W/o-Buddhadeb Mondal against the above named O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service on their part.

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

                                                                                                                                                                    Contd…..….P/2.

                                                                                                       

                                                                                              (2)

               Complainant Smt. Krishna Mondal insured her vehicle bearing no. WB-34AV/8511 (Maruti Omni) with the O.P.-Insurance Co. vide policy no. MOP 3630860000100 covering the period from 12/05/2016 to 11/05/2017 with contract for payment for any kind of accidental damage in the head of OWN DAMAGE claim. On 11/11/2016 at about 1-30 p.m. the said vehicle of the complainant  fell down from a bridge near  village Mishrishol and as a result of such accident the vehicle was totally damaged. Thereafter the complainant sent a claim intimation to the O.P.-Insurance Co.  at their branch office at Kharagpur and on receiving such claim intimation, O.P. no.2 sent a spot surveyor and being asked, the  complainant gave the estimate of repairing and driving license of driver to the surveyor. It is stated that the authorized service centre namely Bhandari Automobile Pvt. Ltd. with whom the damaged vehicle was kept gave an estimate of repairing cost of Rs.2,32,298.43. After long enquiry by their surveyor, the O.P.-Insurance Co.  repudiated the claim of insurance on some false and frivolous plea that the driver of  the insured vehicle had no valid D.L.  and the said vehicle was used for hire and reward purpose and that the said vehicle was carrying friends of the husband of the complainant. It is stated that since the O.P.-Insurance Co.  did not  permit the complainant to repair her vehicle, so the  vehicle is lying with the garage of Bhandari Automobile Pvt. Ltd. and the complainant has to pay huge amount of garage rent. Hence  this complaint praying for directing the O.P.-Insurance Co.  to pay Rs.2,32,298.43/- with interest @12% p.a.  and compensation and cost.

O.P.-Insurance Co.  has contested this case by filing a joint written version.

Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the O.Ps. that discrepancies were noted by them from the  documents submitted by the complainant and it was evident that the vehicle was used for hire  and reward purpose and at the time of accident the driver had no valid license to drive the vehicle. It is stated that as per claim form the name of the driver of the vehicle was one Mandodh Khan. O.Ps.  appointed another independent claim investigator and  during such investigation by him, it was revealed that the vehicle was being driven by Mr. Buddhadeb Mondal, the husband of the complainant, having no driving license in a rash and negligent manner and the vehicle was being used for hire and reward purpose as evident  from the statement of one of the occupants of the vehicle named one Sujoy Manna. It is therefore stated by the O.P.-Insurance Co. that therefore they rightly repudiated the claim of insurance by sending a letter dated 12/07/2017 for violation of terms and conditions of the policy. O.Ps. therefore claim dismissal the complaint with cost.

                                                                                                                                                                  Contd…..….P/3.

                                                                                 

                                                                                              (3)

To prove her case the complainant Smt. Krishna Mondal has examined herself by tendering a written examination-in-chief as PW-1 and one Sri Kuntal Pahari as PW-2. During their evidence some documents were marked as exhibit 1 to 7 respectively.                 

On the other hand O.Ps. adduced no evidence.

                                                                       

                                                      Points for decision

1.     Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer ?
2.     Is there any  deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.?
3.     Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as prayed for ?

                                     

  Decision with reasons

              Point no.1 :-

                                 Maintainability of this case has not been questioned  at the time of final hearing of this case. Form the respective pleadings of the parties we do not find anything adverse regarding maintainability of this case.

This point is accordingly decided in favour of the complainant.

               Point No.2 :-                                                                                                                                                                                               

                                Admittedly the complainant Smt. Krishna Mondal is the registered own of the vehicle  in question bearing no.WB-34AV/8511  and the said vehicle was duly insured with the O.P.-Insurance Co. vide policy no.MOP3630860000100 covering the period from 12/05/2016 to 11/05/2017 with contract of payment of any kind of accidental damage in the head of own damage claim. It is not denied and disputed that on 11/11/2016 at about  1-30p.m. the said vehicle fell down from a bridge near village Mishrisole and due to such accident the said vehicle was badly damaged.  Undisputedly after the said accident, the complainant submitted claim of insurance before the O.P.-Insurance Co. and  the  O.P.-Insurance Co. also engaged a surveyor for assessing the loss and damage of the vehicle. Form the documents filed by the O.P.-Insurance Co.  we find that the said surveyor of the O.P. assessed the loss at Rs.2,46,312/-. It appears from the petition of  complaint as well as from the evidence of complainant that by sending a letter dated 12/07/2017 (Exhibit-5) the O.P.-Insurance Co. repudiated the claim of insurance on the ground that the vehicle was used for hire and reward purpose and the driver of the vehicle had no valid driving license. In their written objection the O.P. has claimed that although the complainant informed in the claim  form that the name of the driver of the vehicle  was Mandodh Khan but during investigation, the Investigator of the O.P. came to know that at the  relevant point of time Buddhadeb Mondal, the husband of the complainant, had been

                                                                                                                                                                        Contd……P/4.                                            

                                                                                        (4)  

               driving the vehicle without having any driving license and the said vehicle was being used for hire and  reward purpose as reported by one Sujoy manna. To prove their such case, O.Ps.  adduced no sort of evidence either  oral or documentary. In absence of such evidence, it cannot be held that the vehicle was being used for hire and reward purpose and that the alleged drive Buddhadeb Mondal having no valid driving license was driving the vehicle thereby violating the driver’s  clause of the policy. On the  contrary we find that to prove her case the complainant has corroborated her case  of the petition of complaint by filing written examination-in-chief supported by affidavit and she has also filed the copy of driving licence (Exhibit-3) of her driver Manbodh Khan. It appears from exhibit-3 that the said driver Manbodh Khan had valid driving license on the date of occurrence of accident.

In the above facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion made above we are constrained to hold that the O.P.-Insurance Co. was not at all justified in repudiating the claim of insurance of the policy and therefore they have deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of insurance.

This point is accordingly decided in the affirmative and in favour of the complainant.   

               Point No.3 :-                                                                                              

In view of our above findings the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

Regarding the loss and damage of the  vehicle we find that the complainant has claimed Rs.2,32,298.43/- with interest. We have already stated that from the documents filed by the O.P. we find that their engaged surveyor Sri Rakesh Singh assessed the net loss and damage of the vehicle at Rs.2,46,312/-. Complainant has claimed lesser  amount than that of the amount so assessed  by the surveyor of the O.P.  and therefore the complainant is entitled to get the amount of  Rs.2,32,298.43/- from the O.P. and for an  order of compensation and cost.

 This point is also decided in favour of the complainant.  

      All the points are accordingly disposed of.           

                 In the result, the complaint case succeds.

                            Hence, it is,

                                               oRdered

                          that the complaint case no.174/2017  is allowed on contest with cost against the O.P.-Insurance Co.

 The O.P.-Insurance Co. is directed to pay Rs.2,32,298.43/- to the

                                                                                                                                                                  Contd……P/5.

                                               

                                                                                                                                    

                                                                               ( 5 )  

complainant with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of this case till payment O.P.-Insurance Co. is further directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony and a further sum of 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 per annum shall carry over the said amount payable in favour of Legal Aid Fund.                               

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

             Dictated and Corrected by me

                       Sd/-B. Pramanik.             Sd/-P.K. Singha           Sd/- S. Sarkar         Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                             President                          Member                       Member                  President

                                                                                                                                      District Forum

                                                                                                                                   Paschim Medinipur