Consumer Complaint No. 188 of 2015
Date of filing: 27-08-2015 Date of disposal: 25-01-2017.
Present :
Sri Asoke Kr. Mandal Hon’ble President,
Smt. Silpi Majumder Hon’ble Member,
Padma Das, W/o. Lt. Lakshman Das,
Resident of G-Block, Nutan Pally,
P.O.-Durgapur-13, Dist.-Burdwan,
Pin-713213. Complainant.
VERSUS
- Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
having its branch office at Khudiram
Sarani, City Centre, Durgapur-16,
Dist.- Burdwan, Pin-713101, represented
by the Branch Manager. Principal Opposite Party.
- Tillotama Das, W/o.Lt. Debendra Das,
J-Block, Natun Pally, School Para Road,
Benachity, Durgapur, Burdwan,
Pin-713213.
Proforma Opposite Party.
Appeared for the complainant : Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the O. P. No. 1 : None.
Appeared for the O. P. No. 2 : Ld. Advocate Tapan Kumar Jash.
JUDGEMENT
This is a case U/s 12 of the C.P. Act for an award directing the Principal O.P. (O.P. No. 1) to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as claim for the accidental death of owner-driver, to pay Rs.40,000/- as interest on such amount and to pay Rs. 60,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and expenditure.
The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant is the widow of the deceased consumer Lakshman Das who was the owner-driver of the vehicle bearing truck No.WB 39A/5583. The O.P. No. 1 being the insurance company, issued the insurance policy bearing No.1003/31/12/639032 for the period from 15.3.2012 to 14.3.2013, in respect of the vehicle as mentioned above having their head office at E-8, RIICO Industrial area Jaipur, Rajasthan-302022 for taking liability of compensation for loss/damage of said vehicle and the liability of the compensation up to Rs.2,00,000/- for personal accident (PA) of the owner-driver, insured person by taking separate/extra premium. Said truck met an accident on 29.11.2012 and in said accident Lakshman Das received serious injuries and he died on 02.12.2012 for such injuries. The complainant for accidental damage of the truck, has no complain about the cost of repairing of the damage vehicle as it has been settled with the financer company of the same organization. The complainant has not received any amount on account of the death of Lakshman Das from the O.P. No. 1 as such she approached the O.P. No. 1 and its head office at Jaipur for payment of compensation but the O.P. No. 1 has been trying to avoid to pay the legitimate compensation to the complainant. The husband of the complainant purchased said vehicle for self employment and for maintenance of his livelihood as well as of his family. The complainant submitted all the papers related to the accident including copis of FIR, seizer list, charge sheet, P.M. report, driving license, RC Book, road tax, permit and insurance policy before the O.P. No. 1 but the O.P. No. 1 has not settled the claim of the complainant till this day though the O.P. company has settled the amount of loss for damage vehicle. So, there is/was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. No. 1. The complainant submitted the filled up claim form before the O.P. No. 1 being advised by its the then Manager but the present Branch Manager of the O.P. No. 1 company verbally advised the complainant to make contact with their Head Office at Jaipur. The complainant sent two letters to the head Office on 10.9.2014 and 7.2.2015. But the Head Office of the O.P. company did not repudiate or settle the claim. On 17.8.2015 the O.P. No. 1 verbally refused to pay the claim amount and repudiated the claim of the complainant without showing any reason. Hence, this case with the prayer as mentioned above.
In spite of service of notice the Principal O.P. did not contest this case by filing W.V. and by adducing any evidence. Hence this case was heard ex-parte against the O.P. No. 1.
Proforma O.P. (O.P. No. 2) Tillotama Das contested in this case by filing W.V. admitting the case of the complainant but stating that in a motor vehicle accident, her son received serious injuries and he died on 02.12.2012 for such injuries, living behind him, the complainant as widow, one minor son, one minor daughter and this O.P. as mother as such she being the mother is entitled to get 1/4th share of the amount if awarded.
DECISION WITH REASON
In support of her case the complainant has relied upon the copies of insurance policy dated 15.3.2012, formal F.I.R. along with written complainant of Mekhliganj P.S. Case No.259/2012 U/s.279/337/338/427 IPC, three seizer lists, charge sheet, RC Book, driving license, P.M. report, death certificate, ID Card of the deceased, application dated 16.8.2013, legal notice issued to Kolkata office and head office, Jaipur dated 10.9.2014 and 18.11.2014 respectively and copy of legal notice dated 7.2.2015 and postal AD Card dated 18.2.2015 showing service of legal notice. The complainant has also relied upon her evidence on affidavit.
From the side of the Proforma O.P. no evidence has been adduced. We carefully perused the documents and evidence adduced by the complainant. It appears from the pleadings that Lakshman Das died due to his injuries received in an accident dt. 29.11.2012. He died on 02.12.2012 living behind him his wife (complainant), one minor son, one minor daughter and the Proforma O.P. as mother. Said minor son and minor daughter have not been made parties to this case. The Principal O.P. is the Branch Office of Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. The head office of Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. is situated at Jaipur, Rajashthan. The head office of Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. issued the policy in question in favour of the complainant. So the liability to pay compensation, if any, to the complainant, is upon said head office but the head office of Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. has not been made party to this case. In the above premises this case is bad for defect of parties.
It is admitted that Lakshman Das, the insured died on 02.12.2012 due to his injuries received in an accident dt. 29.11.2012. This case was filed on 27.8.2015. The complainant has claimed that she lodged claim application before the Principal O.P. (the branchon office) on 16.8.2013. The copy of alleged claim application in plain paper has been filed in this case. This copy is not sufficient to show that the claim application was received by the Principal O.P. as this copy does not bear the seal of the O.P. and as the identity of the person who received this copy has not been disclosed in the complaint and by adducing evidence. Nothing is coming to show that the person who received the copy of such application dated 16.8.2013, was the employee of the Principal O.P. From the side of the complainant a copy of formal application has been filed in this case. But no evidence has been adduced showing that said formal application was submitted before the Principal O.P. or before the Head Office of Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. For argument sake, if it is believed that the claim application dated 16.8.2013 was submitted, it could not be said that the claim was made within the stipulated or cosiderable period before the Principal O.P. The complainant has not given any explanation as to why after the laps of a along period and after receiving the cost of repairing of damaged vehicle, she lodged such separate claim for compensation for the death of her husband. The copy of legal notice dt. 10.09.2014 and contents of the complaint show that the complainant has admitted that the principal O.P. returned the claim application in original to the complainant with the advice to make contact with the Head Office at Jaipur. So no claim application is pending for settlement by the O.P. No. 1. The head office of Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. issued the policy as mentioned in the complaint. So the liability to pay compensation, if any, to the complainant, is upon the head office. In the above premises the claim should be lodged before the head office of Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. but the complainant did not lodge any claim by submitting claim form before the head office of Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. and this case praying for an award, has not been filed against the head office of Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. The copy of the policy certificate shows that the same has been manipulated by overlapping the caption of the policy where the address of the head office of Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. was printed. It is essential to mention that the Ld. Advocate for the complainant on the point of limitation, has relied upon the observations of the Honable. National Commission reported in 2015(2) CPR 322(NC), reported in [2013] 1 CPR(NC) 488 and reported in [2016] 2 CPR(NC) 388. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the facts of the cases as reported, the observations as mentioned above of the Honable. National Commission are not application here.
In view of the above, the complainant has not come with clean hand, the case is not maintainable, the case is bad for defect of parties and the case is barred by limitation. Accordingly the case fails.
Fees paid is correct. Hence, it is
ORDERED
that C.C. Case No. 188 of 2015 be and the same is dismissed exparte against the principal O.P. No. 1 and on contest against the rest without any cost.
Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
(Asoke Kr. Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Asoke Kr. Mandal)
President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
