View 559 Cases Against Royal Sundaram General Insurance
View 46316 Cases Against General Insurance
Tapan Deb Singha filed a consumer case on 21 Mar 2018 against Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co.Ltd. in the Paschim Midnapore Consumer Court. The case no is CC/167/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 21 Mar 2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.
Bibekananda Pramanik, President,
and
Sagarika Sarkar, Member.
Complaint Case No.167/2017
Tapan Deb Singha, S/o late Madan Deb Singha, Vill. Birbhanpur, P.O. Kalaimuri,
P.S. Salboni, District - Paschim Medinipur.
………..……Complainant.
Vs.
Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Kharagpur Branch Office at Inda, P.O. & P.S. Kharagpur, District- Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721305.
.....……….….Opp. Party
For the Complainant: Mr. Asim Kumar Dutta, Advocate.
For the O.P. : Pinaki Sengupta, Advocate.
Date of filing: 08.11.2017.
Decided on: - 21/03/2018
ORDER
Bibekananda Pramanik, President –This consumer complaint U/S 12 of the C.P. Act has been filed by the complainant Tapan Deb Singha against the O.P.- Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company, named above, alleging deficiency in service on their part in repudiating the claim of insurance of the vehicle of the complainant.
Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows:-
The complainant is the owner of Omni bus being no.WB/AJ/4867 and he
Contd……………………P/2.
( 2 )
uses the vehicle for personal use. The complainant registered his said vehicle with the O.P.-Insurance Company vide policy no.MOP4150968 covering the period of policy from 08.02.2017 to 07.02.2018. On 12/06/2017, the said vehicle of the complainant while proceeding towards the house of the complainant at Birbhanpur from Medinipur, then at about 10 p.m. at Kalsibanga jungle, said vehicle suddenly made with a road traffic accident. Due to such accident, front portion of the vehicle was damaged. He lodged a complaint regarding such occurrence at Salboni P.S. on basis of which Salboni P.S. case no.129/17 dated 25.06.2017 was started. After such accident, the complainant also informed the matter to the O.P. within time and submitted claim of insurance of the policy. O.P. thereafter engaged one spot surveyor and after spot survey, the complainant shifted his vehicle in the Ashutosh Show Body Repairing Garage at Abash under P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Paschim Medinipur. The mechanic of the said garage gave a repairing estimate of Rs.1,23,000/- and the complainant deposited such estimate and repairing cost with all relevant documents in the office of the O.P. Thereafter the complainant went to the office of the O.P. again and again and requested for quick disposal of his claim. On 19.09.2017, the O.P. sent a letter to the complainant stating that at the time of accident, the vehicle was used for hire and reward purpose and that LPG Kit was fitted in the vehicle at the time of the accident which was not endorsed in the insurance policy. It is stated that there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. The complainant kept his vehicle in the garage since 12.06.2017 on payment of garage charge. Hence the complaint, praying for directing the O.P. to pay an amount of Rs.1,23,000/- towards repairing cost of the vehicle along with rent of garage and compensation of Rs.25,000/- with litigation cost and interest.
O.P.-Insurance Company has contested this case by filling a written version.
Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the O.P.-Insurance Company that on receipt of the claim intimation, an IRDAI licensed surveyor was appointed and survey was carried out. To verify the facts and circumstances of the claim, an independent claim investigator was also appointed to investigate into the claim and the said investigator has discovered that the insured vehicle had already been sold to another person but the registration certificate and the insurance policy were not transferred in favour of that person. It is also submitted that the investigator unearthed the fact that the said insured vehicle was being used for hire and reward purpose and that an LPG cylinder was unauthorizedly fixed in the car without intimation to the O.P. and without any endorsement being made in the policy issued by the O.P. Since the said car was sold to another person, the complainant had no insurable interest under the said policy. Installation of LPG cylinder in the vehicle is a material change in the risk to the vehicle. It is stated that the above facts were unearthed by the investigator by secretly recording a
Contd……………………P/3.
( 3 )
conversation between the complainant and the present owner. It is stated that the complainant has violated the provisions of the M.V. Act by transferring his ownership without intimation to the O.P. It is therefore claimed by the O.P. that the O.P had not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in repudiating the claim of insurance and the petition of complaint is therefore liable to the dismissed.
To prove his case, the complainant Tapan Deb Singha has examined himself as PW-1 by tendering a written examination-in-chief and during his evidence, few documents were marked as exbt. 1 to 4 respectively. On the other hand, O.Ps adduced no oral evidence but the documents, relied upon by the O.P. were marked as exbt. A,B and B/1 respectively.
Points for decision
Decision with reasons
Point nos.1 to 4:-
For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.
Maintainability of this case has not been questioned by any of the parties at the time of final hearing of this case. We also do not find anything adverse regarding maintainability of this case.
Admittedly, the complainant Tapan Deb Singha insured the vehicle in question being no.WB 34/AG/4867 with the O.P.-Insurance Co. vide policy no.MOP4150968 covering the period from 8.2.2017 to 7.2.2018. It is undisputed that during the said validity period, the disputed vehicle met with an accident and after such accident the complainant lodged claim of insurance of the policy before the O.P. Therefore it is held that the complainant is a ‘consumer’ under the O.P.-Insurance Co.
Regarding deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.-Insurance Co., we find that although the complainant admittedly lodged claim of insurance before the O.P. but the O.P. Co. repudiated the claim vide their letter dated 19.9.2017 on the grounds namely, i) that the vehicle was used for hire and reward purpose; ii) that at the time of loss, the complainant had no insurable interest on the vehicle and iii) that it was observed that LPG kit was fitted in the vehicle at the time of accident which was not endorsed in the insurance policy. Now let us considered as to whether the O.P.-Insurance Co. has been able to prove those grounds
Contd……………………P/4.
( 4 )
of repudiation as disclosed in the said repudiation letter. As about the ground of repudiation regarding hire and reward purpose, O.P. produced no scrap of paper to show and to prove that at the relevant time the vehicle was hiring any passenger. On the contrary, from exbt. B/1, an OD investigation report which has been filed by the O.P., that the investigator of the O.P. has admitted in column no.7 of his observation column that they don’t have any documentary evidence regarding commercial usage of the vehicle. At the time of hearing of argument, Ld. Lawyer of the O.P.-Insurance Co relied much on exbt. A, which is a claim form submitted by the complainant and drawn our attention that in the said claim form the complainant has mentioned a name of one Sourav Ghosh as passenger of the vehicle. But mere carrying of a passenger does not necessarily mean that the said passenger paid any money or hired the vehicle. It might be that the said passenger was “gratuitous” passenger. In view of that and since no document of hiring of the vehicle is produced, so it cannot be held that at the time of accident the vehicle was used for commercial purpose.
Regarding the ground of repudiation due to non-insurable interest of the complainant, it is the case of the O.P.- Co. that during investigation, it was learnt that the insured vehicle had already been sold to another person but the registration certificate and insurance policy were not transferred. Said investigator in his report (exbt. B/1) has admitted that they have no documentary evidence regarding sale of the vehicle. So the said ground is nothing but imaginary and without basis.
Regarding the ground of using of LPG kit, O.P. also produced no iota of evidence to show that the vehicle was running by using LPG kit. So the said ground of repudiation is also vague and not sustainable.
In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the O.P.-Insurance Co. was not at all justified in repudiating the claim of insurance of the policy.
About the loss/damage of the vehicle, we find that although the O.P. engaged a surveyor for assessing the loss and damage but from the surveyor’s report (exbt.A) we find that he did not assess the loss. On the contrary, the complainant has produced an estimate of repairing of vehicle, issued by Asutosh Show Body Repairing and from such estimate we find that the repairing cost of the vehicle was estimated at Rs.1,39,180/-. Although the complainant produced no money receipt but there is no denial on the part of the O.P. regarding such estimated cost of repairing of the vehicle. Therefore we find reasons to accept the said estimate of repairing of the vehicle. After deducting 25% of the said estimated cost, the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,04,385/- towards the cost of repairing of the damaged vehicle and we allow so. That apart, the complainant is also entitled to get an award of compensation and litigation cost.
Contd……………………P/5.
( 5 )
All the points are accordingly decided in favour of the complainant.
In the result, the complaint case succeeds.
Hence, it is,
Ordered,
that the complaint case no.167/2017 is allowed on contest with cost against the O.P.-Insurance Company Ltd.
O.P.-Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.1,04,385/- to the complainant with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till payment. O.P.-Insurance Company is further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
All such payment shall be made within a month from this date of order i.d. 10% penal interest shall carry over the amount of award.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and Corrected by me
Sd/-B. Pramanik. Sd/- S. Sarkar Sd/-B. Pramanik.
President Member President
District Forum
Paschim Medinipur
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.