Tripura

StateCommission

A/14/2018

National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Sanjib Dasgupta - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Sandip Datta Choudhuri

07 Jul 2018

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

Case No.A.14.2018

 

 

 

1.National Insurance Company Ltd.,

Akhaura Road,

P.S. West Agartala, 

District - West Tripura.

… … … … … Appellant/Opposite Party.

 

 

-Vs-

 

 

 

1.Sri Sanjib Das Gupta,

S/o Late Sujit Das Gupta,

Majlishpur, Ranirbazar,

P.O. Majlishpur, P.S. Ranirbazar,

District - West Tripura, Pin - 799 035.

                                                                          … … … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Chandra Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                                          Mr. Sandip Datta Choudhuri, Adv.

For the Respondent:                                      Mr. Suman Bhattacharya, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:     07.07.2018.

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]  

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellant, National Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as opposite party/Insurance Company) under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment dated 17.01.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.C.C.88 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum allowed the complaint case filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant/insured) directing the opposite party to pay compensation amounting to Rs.10,000/- for deficiency of service and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation, in total Rs.13,000/- and also to appoint surveyor to assess the damage and pay the cost of repairing to the complainant on the surveyor’s report. The direction is to be followed within two months. 

2. Heard Mr. Sandip Datta Choudhuri, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-Insurance Company as well as Mr. Suman Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-insured.    
3. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The complainant purchased one Tata Indigo CS GLS vehicle bearing No.TR-01 U 0696 and the same was insured with the opposite party-Insurance Company bearing Policy No.55270031136100068594. The said insurance was valid from 22.09.2013 to 21.09.2014. On 01.02.2014, the complainant sent his driver with the said vehicle to Jatanbari for his personal purpose. On 02.02.2014 when the vehicle was returning from Jatanbari and reached at Garjan Tilla, his said vehicle met with an accident due to sudden failure of breaks. The said vehicle fell into a deep lunga and got damaged badly. Thereafter, the said vehicle was shifted to Natun Bazaar Police Station. It is also contended that at the time of accident, the vehicle was insured with the opposite party-Insurance Company and the accident was occurred within the lifetime of the insurance policy. As the vehicle was damaged, he lodged a claim with the opposite party-Insurance Company. Thereafter the opposite party deputed a surveyor, namely, Sri Pranay Goswami who by his letter dated 12.03.2015 asked the complainant to submit the claim form, policy copy, registration certificate copy, driving license of the driver who was on the steering, police report and estimate of loss. Accordingly, the he submitted all the documents to the said surveyor, but the opposite party-Insurance Company repudiated the claim on 29.07.2015 on the ground that the vehicle was used for hiring purpose denying the Motor Vehicle Rules.

4. Being aggrieved by the action of the opposite party, the insured Sri Sanjib Das Gupta filed an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum claiming an amount of Rs.90,000/- as cost towards repairing of the damaged vehicle, Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of service and harassment and Rs.25,000/- as legal expenses along with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of his petition till the date of actual payment.
5. Opposite party-Insurance company appeared and filed written statement denying the claim. The main contention of the opposite party before the District Forum was that the claim of the complainant was denied as because it was used for hiring purpose denying the Motor Vehicle Rules. The policy covers use of the vehicle other than hiring or carrying of goods.
6. Complainant in support of his claim produced all the necessary documents i.e. Registration Card, Screen Report, Tax Token, Certificate issued by Officer in Charge, Nutan Bazaar Police Station, Driving License, Insurance Policy Certificate, letter of the Surveyor, letter of Repudiation. He also submitted his statement on affidavit and examined himself as P.W.1.
7. Opposite party on the other hand did not adduce any evidence though cross-examined the complainant.
8. On the basis of evidences on record, the learned District Forum passed the impugned judgment as stated (supra).
9. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned District Forum, the opposite party-Insurance Company preferred the instant appeal.
10. Mr. Datta Choudhuri, Ld. Counsel in his usual fairness submits that the accident occurred within the lifetime of the insurance policy. He also contended that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the vehicle was used for hiring purpose i.e. other than the purpose for which it was insured. In support of his contention, he has mentioned that on 01.02.2014, one Jr. Engineer was dropped by the said vehicle at Jatanbari NBCC office.  
11. Mr. Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel for the complainant while supporting the impugned judgment would contend that the opposite party-Insurance Company failed to prove its case, as they did not adduce any evidence in support of their contention in the written statement. He further submits that mere dropping of a person does not mean that the vehicle was hired. There is no condition in the insurance policy that the insured of the vehicle cannot drop even his known person from one place to another place without any hiring charge.
12. We have gone through the evidence on record. It is admitted position that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party-Insurance Company. The accident occurred within the lifetime of the insurance policy for which they appointed one surveyor and the complainant submitted all the necessary documents to him as asked for. The opposite party in its written statement mainly relied upon on the statement made in the G.D. Entry that one Jr. Engineer was dropped. The learned District Forum rightly held that “In a private vehicle some time some person may be given lift but that cannot be treated as used for hiring purpose.” More so, no specific evidence given by the opposite party to support its contention that the vehicle was used for hiring purpose. For the argument sake, even if it is accepted that the Jr. Engineer was dropped at Jatanbari NBCC office on 01.02.2014, then also, the accident admittedly occurred on 02.02.2014. Therefore, it can be easily said that the cause of accident is not for dropping the Jr. Engineer as stated. According to the Police Report, the vehicle fell into a deep lunga due to sudden failure of breaks as reported by the driver of the vehicle resulting of which the vehicle got badly damaged. From the examination report of vehicle by Inspector of Motor Vehicle, namely, Sri K.D Barma, it is established that the said vehicle was not found on road worthy condition and it was not possible to be driven on road without repair.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the learned District Forum did not commit any error while passing the impugned judgment. Thus no interference is called for.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura