DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

 

CASE NO:  CC – 88  of   2017

 

 

Sri Sanjib Das Gupta,

S/O- Lt. Sujit Das Gupta,

Majlishpur, Ranirbazar,

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

West Tripura- 799 035. .....…...Complainant.

 

 

            VERSUS

 

 

    National Insurance Company Ltd.,

Represented by the Additional Manager,

Agartala Divisional Office, 42 Akhaura Road,

Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, 

West Tripura. ........ Opposite Party.

 

 

__________PRESENT__________

 

 

 SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

C  O  U  N  S  E  L

 

 

For the Complainant : Sri Suman Bhattacharya,

  Sri Niladri Mukherjee,

  Advocates.

 

For the O.P. : Sri Joydeep Paul,

  Advocate.

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  17.01.2018.

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T

 

This case arises on the petition filed by one Sanjib Das Gupta U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that on 02.02.2014, the vehicle of the complainant met accident at Jatan Bari. The vehicle fell into ditch and was damaged. Matter was informed to the O.P. Insurance company. But insurance company repudiated the claim on 29.07.2015. Petitioner as effected by such deficiency of service filed this case for redress.

 

2. O.P. Insurance company appeared, filed written statement denying the claim. The main contention of the O.P. is that the claim of the petitioner 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 reward or carrying of goods. 

 

3. On the basis of contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up determination:

(I) Whether the vehicle met accident and the claim was illegally denied by the Insurance company?

(II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for deficiency of service?

 

4. Petitioner produced the registration card, screen report, Tax Token, Certificate issued by Officer in Charge, Nutan Bazar, Driving License, Insurance Policy Certificate, Letter of the Surveyor, letter of Repudiation. Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of one witness, Sanjib Das Gupta.

 

5. O.P. on the other hand cross examined the P.W. and produced no other evidence.

 

6. On the basis of evidences on record we shall now determine the following pints.

 

Findings and decisions:

 

7. We have gone through the registration, Screen Report, Driving License and the Policy Certificate. From the perusal of the Policy Certificate it is found that own damage was covered by the policy and premium was Rs.4,059/-. It was insured and total IDV is Rs.2,09,390/-. Insurance coverage was from 22.09.2013 to 21.09.2014. It is admitted that the during coverage period the accident occurred. 

 

8. We have gone through the certificate given by the Officer In-charge Nutan Bazar P.S. From that certificate it is revealed that the vehicle met accident due to sudden failure of brake as reported by driver. O.P. produced the copy of G.D. Entry  submitted by petitioner to the O/C, Nutan Bazar Police Station. From that report it is found that when the vehicle was coming back after dropping Sushanta Deb, Junior Engineer the accident occurred. From that G.D. Entry O.P. raised the contention that the vehicle was used for hiring purpose. 

 

9. We have gone through the repudiation letter issued by the O.P. Insurance company. The claim was denied on the ground that the vehicle was used for hiring purpose on the material point of accident. Petitioner in his evidence clearly stated that he sent his driver to Jatan Bari for his personal purpose. It is also stated that he lodged claim to O.P. O.P. deputed Surveyor, Pranay Goswami who asked him to submit Claim Form. All documents were submitted before him. 

 

10. From perusal of the documents and the evidence given by both the parties it is transpired that the claim was repudiated on the ground that it was used for hiring purpose on the material points of time. But to support this contention O.P. produced no evidence. They only relied on the statement of G.D. Entry that one Junior Engineer was dropped. In a private vehicle some time some person may be given lift but that can not be treated as used for hiring purpose. No specific evidence given by O.P. to support that the vehicle was used for hiring purpose.

 

11. We therefore have come to the conclusion that such repudiation of the claim was unfair, improper. This is deficiency of service by the O.P. Petitioner is entitled to get compensation for that deficiency of service. In our considered view, the amount of compensation will be Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost Rs.3,000/-. We also consider that O.P. Insurance company should appoint surveyor to assess the damage and pay the cost of repairing as assessed to the petitioner on the surveyor report. The direction is to be followed within 2(two) months. Case disposed accordingly. 

 

 

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA SRI  U. DAS

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA