DATE OF FILING : 03-05-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 19-07-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 27-03-2014.
Smt. Shampa Pal,
wife of Sri Kanchan Pal,
of village Dakshin Gangarampur, P.O. Kaijur,
P.S. Uluberia, District – Howrah,
PIN – 711 316.------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. The Branch Manager,
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Mani Square, 6th floor,
164, Manicktala Main Road,
Kolkata – 700 064.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
having its registered and head office
at GE Plaza, Airport, Yerwada,
Pune – 411006.-----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The complainant Smt. Shampa Pal by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.Ps. to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as insurance claim against policy together compensation and litigation costs along with other reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant insured ( package policy ) of her mini bus with the o.ps. ( herein Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. ) with policy no. OG-12-2417-1812-00000497 valid from 24-02-2012 to 23-02-2013 mid night and paid the sum of Rs. 32,652/- only as premium. Incidentally on 18-09-2012 at about 10-30 a.m. the said vehicle met an accident towards Shyampur and the vehicle was seriously damaged and necessary FIR was lodged under Uluberia P.S. vide P.S. Case no. 79 of 2012 dated d18-09-2012 and necessary charge sheet was made against the driver. The
complainant reported the said accident to the o.ps. and submitted her claim vide claim no. OC-13-2401 181200000158 and accordingly one surveyor was appointed by the o.ps. for assessment the actual damages on the dated 03-11-2012 which is duly accepted by the complainant or his representative. The o.ps. finally repudiated the claim of the complainant. Being aggrieved the complainant filed the instant case with the aforesaid prayer. Hence the complaint.
3. Notices were served upon the o.ps. O.Ps. appeared and filed written version.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. By paying the required amount of premium, complainant becomes a consumer of o.ps. We have carefully gone through the written version and noted the contents therein, vide para no. 19 of the said written version have stated that the rash driving and overloading on the vehicle bearing no. WB-11B/9393 was the sole cause of the accident which is clear violation of the Section 123 of 184 of the M.V. Act, 1989 which is also in contradictory of counter affidavit submitted by the complainant. Moreover, the cause of action ( accident ) arisen at Shyampur under Uluberia P.S. which well within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum as per record.
6. It is admitted fact s that the surveyor Shri Ratan Pal surveyed the loss caused due to such accident met of the said vehicle which is under coverage of insurance policy and paid the premiums under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The loss assessed for the surveyor appointed by the o.ps. was accepted. The vehicle of the complainant got damaged and the o.ps. have admitted the facts of accident and the complainant lodged the claim of damage cost in due time which is as per loss assessed by the surveyor as per record. Accordingly we accept the claim of the complainant as a justified one, a legitimate claim. People take an insurance policy to cover the unforeseen risk and at the time of payment of the claims o.ps. are taking all false pleas which should not be allowed.
7. Accordingly we concluded our considered opinion that by not paying the claimed amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- to the complainant o.ps. have adopted unfair trade practice. Such action of the o.ps. is arbitrary, whimsical. Accordingly we hold the o.ps. are to be deficient in nature.
Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
In the result, the complaint succeeds.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 140 of 2013 ( HDF 140 of 2013 ) be allowed on contest with costs against o.ps.
The O.Ps. are joi8ntly and severally directed to release the amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- in favour of the complainant and to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and litigation costs of Rs. 1,000/- within 30 days from the date of this order i.d., the entire amount shall carry an interest of @ 10% till full realization. .
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( P. K. Chatterjee )
Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
