DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 34  of  2021

 

 

Sri Rajesh Paul,

S/O- Sri Gopal Paul,

R/O- Ajit Palli, Jogendranagar,

Near Najrul H.S. School,

P.S. East Agartala, Agartala,

District-West Tripura- 799004. ........Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. SBI General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Policy issuing Office:-

2rd Floor, Lakshmi Darshan Building, 

Ulubari,(Opposite Bora Service),

G.S. Road, Guwahati, Assam- Pin 781007.

Represented by Authorized Official).

 

 

2. SBI General Insurance Company Ltd.,

15th Floor, P.S. Srijan Corporate Park, 

Plot No. G-2, Block- EP & GP,

Sector-V, Bidhannagar, Kolkata- 700091.

(Represented by Authorized Official). .......Opposite Parties.

 

 

3. Jain Udyog(Automobile Division),

A.D. Nagar, P.S. A.D. Nagar,

Agartala, West Tripura, Pin- 799003,

(Represented by 

Authorized Signatory).       ........Proforma Opposite Party.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant  : Sri Pradip Rathor,

    Sri Sukhendu Debbarma,

  Smt. Titu Rani Shil,

  Smt. Babita Debbarma,

  Learned Advocates. 

 

For the O.P. No.1 & 2 : Sri Prabal Kumar Ghosh,

  Learned Advocate.

 

For the Proforma

O.P. No. 3 : Smt. Ranasree Pal,

  Learned Advocate.

 

 

ORDER   DELIVERED  ON:  17/03/2023.

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

1 This complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection, Act, 2019 has been filed by Sri Rajesh Paul of Jogendranagar, Agartala, West Tripura(here-in-after referred to as the “Complainant”) against the SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd., Guwahati, Assam(here-in-after referred to as the “O.P. No.1”), SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd., Bidhannagar, Kolkata(here-in-after referred to as the “O.P. No.2”) and Jain Udyog,(Automobile Division), A.D. Nagar, Agartala Tripura West(here-in-after referred to as the “O.P. No.3”) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

1.1 The case of the complainant is short is that the complainant purchased one OMNI 8 SARI/MARUTI OMNI-E-MPI STD BS4 vehicle bearing registration No. TR 01 BE 0258 for personal use availing finance from the Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. The said vehicle was insured with the O.P. No.2 under a package policy (private vehicle) vide policy no. 900318713/N 908935556 dated 18.06.2018 w.e.f. 18.076.2018 to 17.06.2019 ie.., for one year. 

1.2 That on 25.04.2019 at 22.30 hours the said vehicle met with an accident at Bypass of Mohanpur- Agartala Road while trying to save a cow crossing the road. As a result the vehicle got badly damaged.  G.D. Entry was registered vide no. P.S. G.D.E. No.24 dated 26.05.2019. 

1.3 The said vehicle was shifted to the workshop of Jain Udyog, Arundhutinagar for repair. The matter of accident was informed to the O.P. No.2 after completing formalities for survey and asses the damage of the same. 

1.4 On 2nd July one Uttam Kumar Banik, BSM, Jain Udyog, Agartala sent one e-mail to the O.Ps  stating that motor claim on 16.09.2019 was submitted and surveyor surveyed the vehicle but Jain Udyog did not get work order  to start the repair work order from the O.Ps.   Arindom Choudhury, official of O.Ps vide his email dated 3rd July, 2019 replied that it was to start the repairing   after providing  documents mentioned in the said e-mail. 

1.5 On 20.09.2019 the O.P. No.2 repudiated the claim of the complainant stating the ground  that ''The Policy  covers use of the vehicle for any purpose other than: (a)Hire or Reward, (b)Carriage of Goods(other than samples or personal luggage, (c)organized racing, (d)pace making (e)speed testing (f) Reliability trials (g) Any purpose in connection with Motor Trade”' and “hence we deny the liability under the policy for the  reported claim”.

1.6 The said vehicle was repaired for an amount of Rs.1,37,000/- as per invoice dated 27.02.2020 which was due to the Proforma O.P. No.3. 

1.7 Complainant sent demand notice dated 02.01.2021 to the O.P. No. 2(insurer) and also to the  Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd.  but the O.P. did not cooperate with the complainant and repudiated the claim of the complainant  by letter dated 25.01.2021 stating:'“The Policy  covers use of the vehicle for any purpose other than: (a)Hire or Reward, (b)Carriage of Goods(other than samples or personal luggage, (c)organized racing, (d)pace making (e)speed testing (f) Reliability trials (g) Any purpose in connection with Motor Trade”' and “hence we deny the liability under the policy for the  reported claim”.

1.8 Hence, the complainant filed this petition before this Commission for getting relief claiming Rs.1,37,000/, repairing cost of the vehicle, Rs.3,00,000/-, towards deficiency of service, mental agony and sufferings, Rs.50,000/- as litigation cost along with 18 % interest. 

 

2. All the O.Ps appeared and contested the case by filing their respective written versions. 

2.1 The O.P. No.1 and 2 stated that the complaint is not tenable as there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. No.1 and 2. The claim of the complainant processed after due perusal of all documents and hence the  complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine for want of cause of action.   

2.2 It is also stated by the O.Ps that the complainant failed to produce substantial evidence or specific averment to prove his claim admissible under the terms and condition of the Insurance Policy.

2.3 It is the contention of the O.P. No.1 and 2 that the said vehicle was used on Hire & Reward basis   in contravention of the Policy Terms and Conditions(Limitation as to use) on the date of the accident i.e., on 25th April, 2019. The vehicle was inspected by the joint Transport Commissioner, Agt, West Tripura followed by Police Investigation which indicated that the vehicle did not have any mechanical disorder.

2.4 As per Survey Report, the loss had been pegged at INR 60,973.06/-  which is lesser amount and thus the inflated claim made by the complainant is nothing but false. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

2.5 The Proforma O.P. No.3 through their written version have admitted the fact of the accident which was occurred on 25.09.2019 at Bypass of Mohanpur-Agartala Road, as a result of which the vehicle of the complainant got  badly damaged. 

2.6 It is also contended in the written version that the O.P.No.3 admits that the O.P. No. 1 and 2 was informed regard the accident and requested for their assistance to carry out survey and assess the damage to the insured vehicle but the O.P. No.1 and 2 did not extent full co-operation  which the O.Ps obliged to do so by virtue of contract of the insurance. 

2.7 The O.P. No.3  after getting instruction from the O.P. No.1 and 2 repaired the damaged vehicle of the complainant and an amount of Rs.1,37,000/- as per invoice dated 27.02.2020 is due to the O.P. No.3.  

 

3. Complainant submitted his evidence on affidavit as P.W.1 reiterating the facts as contended in his complaint petition. The O.P. No.3 also filed their evidence on affidavit of one Sri Nilabja Saha, Coordinator of M/S Jain Udyog, A.D. Nagar, Agartala.  

4. The following points are formulated for discussion and decision:-

(i) Whether the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the O.Ps No.1 and 2 are justified?

(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as sought for?

 

DISCUSSION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:-

5. Both the points are taken up together for discussion and decision.

5.1 The only dispute in this case is whether the complainant ran his vehicle carrying passenger at the time of accident inspite of the fact that the policy of insurance was Private Car Package Policy. The O.P. Insurance company though repudiated the claim  on this ground but has not been successful to adduce any evidence, oral or documentary to show and prove such violation of policy condition.

5.2 The complainant has submitted estimate from O.P. No.3 wherein the vehicle was repaired after the accident. We find no justification to disbelieve the estimate of O.P. No.3. 

5.3 Hence, it is ordered that the O.P. No.1 i.e., the Insurer of the vehicle shall reimburse this amount of Rs.1,37,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand)  to the complainant with a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) as compensation for which the complainant had to approach this Commission. The O.P. shall pay this amount within 30(thirty) days from today, otherwise it shall carry interest @ 7.5% P.A. from today till the date of payment.

The case stands disposed off. 

Supply a copy of this Final Order free of cost to the complainant and the Opposite parties.

 

Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.