West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/124/2017

Subrata Shaw - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Dipak Kumar Pal

28 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.                           

     

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

 Pulak Kumar Singha, Member

and

 Sagarika Sarkar, Member.   

Complaint Case No.124/2017

 

Subrata Shaw, S/o-Mritunjoy Shaw,

Vill-Nohatikri, P.O.-Balia Bhutkahalia, P.S.-Beliaberah,

District-Paschim Medinipur

                                                                ..………..……Complainant.

Vs.

1. Royalsundram General Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by its  

Manager, Registered office, 21, Patullos Road,  

Chennai-600002

1. Royalsundram General Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by its 

                    Manager, Atwal Estate Building Tower, 1^st Floor at O.T. Road,

 P.O.-Kharagpur, P.S.-Kharagpur (T),

                                           District-Paschim Medinipur                                                                          

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

                                                     

                For the Complainant  : Mr. Dipak Kumar Pal, Advocate.

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

   

                                                                                               Date of Filing : 02/08/2017.

            Decided on: 28/02/2018.

                               

ORDER

            Pulak Kumar Singha, Member :

                 Complainant files  this case u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

                  In short the case of the complainant is that the complainant is a owner of maruti Omni bearing No.WB-34AP/5647 which was validity insured with the O.Ps. and period of validity of insurance was from 20/03/2016 to 19/03/2017. Said vehicle was met with an accident for which the insured vehicle sustained severe damaged. After getting intimation

                                                                                                                                                        Contd……………P/2

 

                                                                                                ( 2 )                                                                                                

 in respect of accident from complainant O.P.  sent spot surveyor who inspected the damaged vehicle but he  did not give any permission to the repairs centre for  dismental and repaired the vehicle. Complainant submitted relevant documents to O.P. no.2 for settling the claim but O.P. repudiated the claim on the grand, that said vehicle was used hire purpose which is against the policy condition. For such act of O.P. complainant has been suffering mental pain and sustained monitory loss, as such complainant appeared before this Forum for getting relief as prayed for of his complainant.

O.Ps. appeared and contested the case by filing written objection, denying the allegations stating inter alia, that the claim of the complainant is not maintainable, O.Ps. rightly repudiated the claim on the ground of limitations as to use of the vehicle as the risk undertaken was different from the actual risk incurred. Complainant violated the policy condition and O.Ps. prayed for dismissal of the complaint.       

                                                     Decision with reasons

                We carefully perused the complaint documents and evidence and it is admitted fact that complainants insured vehicle met with an accident, in which the vehicle in question was badly damaged. Complainant intimated the matter of accident to O.P. no.2 and O.P. no.2 also engaged spot surveyor who inspected the damaged vehicle and complainant also submitted estimate copy of repairing cost with other documents before O.P. no.2 but O.Ps. repudiated the claim on the grand limitation as to use of policy clause.

Complainant to prove his case adduced evidence himself as PW-1 and one Prakas Dey Chowdhury as PW-2. Both witnesses are cross-examined by O.Ps. PW-1 stated in his evidence that on the date of accident along with my friends went to Jharkhand and when reached near Jagannathpur one Gas Tanker vide No.NL-011/2435 which was coming with high speed from opposite side dashed my vehicle for which my vehicle badly damaged and my friends were also injured. PW-2 stated in his evidence that after  inspecting the damaged vehicle in our automobile centre our surveyor prepared estimated cost of  repair and he identified the signature of estimate which marked as (Exhibit-13).

From the insurance we find that seating capacity “eight” of the insured vehicle in question was duly covered under the policy issued by O.Ps. which valid up-to  19/03/2017 and accident occurred on 29/08/2016. The vehicle in question was covered under package policy (Private vehicle) and in the private vehicle friends of the owner can be travelled and in that case no question can be arise for hire or reward. O.Ps. have casually stated in their written objection that said vehicle was used as hire or reward purpose on the date of accident but they did not adduce any evidence or produce any cogent evidence to establish their defense. On the basis on presumption O.Ps. did not settled the genuine claim  of the

                                                                                                                                                             Contd……………P/3

 

                                                                                                ( 3 )

complaint for which the complainant has to suffer huge monitory loss as the vehicle is kept in the repairing shop in a damaged condition since long period. Complainant submitted one  estimate of repairing cost to the O.P. no.2 but O.P. did not consider the same through O.Ps. fail to  prove that vehicle was used as hire purpose.

We find from estimate prepared by Bhandari Automobiles who is an authorized repairing center who prepared estimate cost of Rs.2,32,760/- including taxes for repairing the damaged vehicle. But in the copy of policy we find that IDV (insured declared value) mentioned Rs.2,24,695/-. So, claim cannot be exceed of IDV of the vehicle. We think that complainant has been suffering mental pain, harassment and monetory loss due to whimsical attitude of O.Ps.  and at the same time O.Ps. are deficient in rendering service  to their bonofide consumer and for such act of O.Ps. complainant is entitled to get an order as per prayer of his complaint.                     

                              The complaint case succeeds.           

           Hence, it is,

                                                 Ordered,

                             that the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest  against O.Ps. with cost.

O.Ps. are  directed to pay jointly or severally a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two lakh) only to the complainant for cost of repairs, to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental pain and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of order.

Failure to comply the order O.Ps. shall be liable to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as penal cost to the Legal Aid Fund of this Forum till full realization.

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

             Dictated and Corrected by me

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

                               Member                                          Member                                     President

                                                                                                                                    District Forum

                                                                                                                                Paschim Medinipur