Tripura

StateCommission

A/17/2016

The Branch Manager, The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Kailashahar Branch - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Rakhal Bhowmik - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. P.Gautam, Mr. S.Debnath

04 Feb 2017

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

 

Case No.A.17.2016

 

 

1. The Branch Manager,

United India Insurance Company Limited,

Kailashahar Branch, District - Unakoti.

 

Represented by its Divisional Manager, Agartala Divisional Office,

Opp. Old R.M.S. Chowmuhani, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

West Tripura, Agartala. 

 

… … … … Appellant/Opposite Party

 

1.Sri Rakhal Bhowmik,

S/o Late Paresh Chandra Bhowmik,

Village & P.O. Chantail,

P.S. Kailashahar

District - Unakoti Tripura.

 

… … … … … Respondent/Complainant

 

 

Present

 

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

For the Appellant:   Mr. Pradyumna Gautam, Adv.

For the Respondent: Mr. Arindam Roy, Adv.

Date of Hearing and Delivery of Judgment: 04.02.2017.

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

 

U.B. Saha,J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellant-opposite party, Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Kailashahar Branch under section 15 of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 against the Judgment dated 05.01.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, North Tripura, Kailashahar (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), in Case No.CC-03 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Forum while allowing the complaint petition awarded a sum of Rs.1 lac to be paid by the Insurance Company, the appellant herein, to the respondent-complainant within one month from the date of judgment failing which the award will carry interest @8% per annum.

2. Heard Mr. Pradyumna Gautam, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant-opposite party, United India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as opposite party/Insurance Company) as well as Mr. Arindam Roy, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant (hereinafter referred to as complainant).
3. Facts of the case in short are that the complainant had purchased an Insurance Policy being No.130981/31/11/01/00002408 on 20.03.2012 and the value of the policy is Rs.1 lac. Within the validity period of the aforesaid policy, the complainant faced an accident on 02.11.2012 due to collision in between his own motor cycle bearing Registration No.TR-02-B-7988 (Hero Honda Super Splendor) and Maruti vehicle No.AS-11-A-8557, when he was going by driving his motor cycle towards Chantail from Kailashahar and reached at Jiturdighirpar on Kailashahar-Kumarghat road. It is also contended in the complaint that he received fractured injuries in his left leg and grievous injuries on his face and head and in unconscious condition, he was first shifted to R.G.M. Hospital, Kailashahar with the help of police personnel and fire service staff for treatment. Thereafter, he was referred to South City Hospital, Silchar on 03.11.2012. There, he was under treatment as an indoor patient from 03.11.2012 to 18.11.2012 and during that period he had to spend in total Rs.71,803/-. Due to the said accident, his left leg has become short, stiff and weak and he cannot work properly as earlier. District Disability Medical Board issued disability certificate with 30% disability for the aforesaid motor accident. The complainant initially filed one Title Suit (MAC) 12/2013 under section 163(A) of the M.V. Act before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Kailashahar against the opposite party-Insurance Company and the said Title Suit was withdrawn on technical ground. Thereafter, he filed an application under section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the Ld. District Forum, Kailashahar against the opposite party, Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. for granting compensation due to sustaining grievous fracture injuries in his left leg, face and head caused by the said road traffic accident occurred on 02.11.2012. In his complaint petition, he has claimed an amount of Rs.3,53,803/-.
4. The opposite party-Insurance Company after receipt of the notice submitted written statement denying all the information and allegations levelled against the opposite party including the alleged accident occurred on 02.11.2012. The Insurance Company has mentioned in its written statement that being the driver and owner of the motor cycle, the complainant cannot claim himself to be a third party and he cannot claim compensation as third party as per the terms and contracts of the policy.
5. The Ld. District Forum after hearing the parties and considering the Section-II-1(i) and Section-II-1(ii) has held that the complainant is entitled to get an award amounting to Rs.1 lac i.e. the policy amount.
6. The Insurance Company, the appellant herein, has challenged the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that the Ld. District Forum failed to consider the terms and conditions of the policy in its true spirit. Not only that, when admittedly, the complainant is a driver-cum-owner, for his accident, Section III of the policy would be applicable, whereas the District Forum passed the judgment relied upon Section-II - liability to third parties and by way of that, in fact, the Ld. District Forum rewrites the contract between the parties which is not permissible.
7. When the matter is taken up for hearing, both the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties have submitted that the matter has to be remanded before the Ld. District Forum to reconsider of the policy, particularly, the Section-III of the policy along with other conditions.
8. We have perused the impugned judgment, wherein the Ld. District Forum though has  stated that the complainant being the owner and driver has a coverage of accident up to Rs.1 lac, but has not considered the relevant Section of the policy i.e. Section-III. Thus, we are also of the view that it would be proper on our part not to express any opinion on merit, but to set aside the impugned judgment and remand the case for reconsideration and relook the policy, particularly, Section-III of the policy. We also make it clear that mere withdrawal of the Title Suit by the complainant itself would not be a bar to approach the Consumers Fora in view of the Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act.      

Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to the District Forum to decide the matter afresh. As we are remanding the matter after setting aside the impugned judgment, the parties are also at liberty to adduce further evidence, if so advised. The Ld. District Forum shall issue notice to the parties after receipt of the record for their appearance and adducing evidence, if so advised. The District Forum is also requested to dispose of the aforesaid complaint case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the records.

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, North Tripura, Kailashahar.

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura MEMBER State Commission Tripura PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura