District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly
PETITIONER
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Complaint Case No.CC/79/2021
(Date of Filing:-30.04.2021)
- Biplab Ghosh of
Gauripur Narasinbati Senai,
Goghat, District:-Hooghly, Pin:- 712611.
- The Branch Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Policy Serving Branch Office at 2nd Floor
49, Dobson Road, AC Market, Kadamtala, Howrah
- The Claim Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Eastern Zone Head Office at
Thapar House, 4th Floor
163, S.P. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700026
- The General Manager
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
Registered Office at Reliance Centre, South Wing
-
Off Western Express Highway, Mumbai-400055
……….Opposite Parties
Before:-
Mr. Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President
Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member
Mrs. Babita Choudhury, Member
PRESENT:
Dtd.10.05.2024
Final Order/Judgment
Debasis Bhattacharya:- PRESIDING MEMBER
The instant case filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 arises out of the grievances of the complainant with regard to repudiation of claim against a vehicle insurance policy maintained with the opposite parties.
It will be worth mentioning that vehicle insurance is an agreement between a car owner and the car insurance provider that offers protection for four wheelers in the case of financial losses due to unforeseen events like accidents and natural calamities. The policy financially protects the vehicle in case of damage or loss through an accident.
Brief facts of the case
The complainant being the owner of the vehicle No.WB-17N/1540 got the said vehicle insured by the OP under the policy No. 1503219233400002541 with the validity period up to 17.07.2020.
However, during the continuance of the policy, the said vehicle on 06.01.2019 at 9:45 p.m. while parked somewhere in Solapur, Maharastra caught fire causing extensive damage to itself. However the fire was put off by the concerned fire brigade personnel.
Consequent upon that, a complaint was lodged with the respective Police Station on 08.01.2020 by the helper of the vehicle.
However the vehicle was shifted to one Laxmi Auto Service of Solapur itself.
Reportedly the helper of the vehicle lodged a claim with the claim Manager of the OP Insurance Company on 30.01.2020.
It is admitted by the Complainant that the filling up of the claim form was erroneous so far as the inclusion of names of the driver and the helper were concerned. The Complainant claims to have requested the concerned person of the OP insurance Company verbally to rectify the mistake.
On the other hand that Laxmi Auto Services Ltd. charged an amount of Rs.4,91,103/- for repairing the vehicle but the Complainant due to financial stringency could not pay that amount and the vehicle remained lying idle within the custody of that concern which was authorized service centre of Tata Motors.
At the same time the financier Bank declared the Complainant a defaulter on 13.03.2020 as the Complainant borrower failed to pay the EMI.
On 30.06.2020 the Complainant sent a letter through his Advocate to the OP insurance Company with a request to consider the claim. The Complainant also claims to have visited the office of the OP insurance Company at Kolkata and in Maharashtra several times. But no positive result was yielded.
Once again on 03.03.21 another legal notice was sent to the OP Insurance Company raising the demands but the OPs remained unresponsive and indifferent.
Considering such attitude of the OP Insurance Company as deficiency in service, the complainant filed the complaint petition seeking direction upon the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.4,91,103/- towards repair of the damaged vehicle with applicable interest, to pay Rs.10,00,000/- to compensate the loss for leaving the vehicle idle as well as the mental agony, sufferings and damage andto pay Rs.40,000/- against litigation cost.
The complainant along with his petition has submitted copies of the policy schedule, claim form, certificate of registration of the vehicle, authorization certificate of NP, driving license, complaint lodged with the Police Station, accident repair estimate, document request letter of the OP Insurance Company, financier bank’s notice and all legal notices sent by the Complainant and postal receipts and postal track report thereof.
Evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant is almost a replica of the complainant petition.
However in the evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument the Complainant has denied all the retaliatory statements incorporated in the evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument of the OPs.
Defense case
The opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 belonging to the same organization contested the case by filing elaborate rebuttals in their written version and brief notes of argument denying therein most of the allegations leveled against them. Written version filed by the OP insurance Company is treated as evidence on affidavit on prayer.
The OP Insurance Company though claimed that the complaint petition is not maintainable but no maintainability petition in this regard has been filed by them.
Besides, certain routine statements like ‘the petitioner has no cause of action against the OPs’, the claim is bad by the principles of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence’ have been made in the written version without assigning any reason for incorporating these statements.
Apart from the above, the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission in the matter of proceeding of the instant case has been grossly questioned by the OP Insurance Company. They repeatedly point out that as the place of occurrence of the incident is outside the jurisdiction of the Commission and as the OPs have no branch office within the respective territorial jurisdiction, this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try this case.
The OPs have claimed also that as insurance coverage was obtained for Commercial purpose only, the Complainant cannot be treated as a consumer.
However the OP Insurance Company points out that independent investigating agency for conducting investigation on the reported loss could not be appointed as in spite of repeated requests and reminders the Complainant did not provide the required documents. Moreover the claim was not submitted within the stipulated time.
Decision with reason
So far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned, it may be mentioned that The Consumer Protection Act.2019 now provides that the consumers can register their complaints at a place where all or one of the opposite parties resides or carries on business, or the place of cause of action or where complainant is residing or works for gain unlike the 1986 Act, thus increasing the scope of territorial jurisdiction.
In view of the above, this Commission definitely has jurisdiction to try this case as the Complainant’s residential address is within the district of Hooghly.
The claim preferred by the Complainant does not exceed Rs.50,00,000/-. Thus no question should arise as far as the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission is concerned.
The OP insurance Company in this case is a service provider and the Complainant has declared in the complaint petition that income derived from the use of the said vehicle was exclusively spent for the regular maintenance and/or livelihood of the members of the family of the Complainant. The Complainant also declared that he had no other alternative source of income.
Thus the Complainant may be regarded as a consumer u/s 2(7) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Now the question comes up whether there was any deficiency of service and whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief.
In the complaint petition, in evidence on affidavit, in brief notes of argument and even in the complaint lodged with the concerned P.S it is noted that the mishap occurred on 06.01.2019 whereas the complaint was lodged with the P.S on 08.01.2020. Had it been a typo, it might have been occurred once. But repeatedly the Complainant refers to the dates as mentioned above.
Thus it is grossly questionable that why the Complainant took more than one year to lodge the complaint with the concerned P.S.
Secondly, on receipt of the particular claim the OP insurance Commission before appointing an independent surveyor appears to have entrusted One M/S Shivam Services to verify the genuineness of the claim. Accordingly the agency in their communication dtd.25.01.2020 made to the Complainant alleges that they moved to the Complainant’s place and met the Complainant but the Complainant in turn did not provide any statement.
Furthermore, the Complainant was asked to produce certain documents for processing of the claim viz. the towing bill copy, tax token and fitness certificate copy, treatment paper of the driver and helper, loaded consignment details and fire report if any and driver DL.
The Complainant was also asked to arrange a meeting with the driver and helper along with their original ID proof and to provide a written statement covering the full details about the incident.
However on examination of extant records the Complainant does not appear to have acted accordingly.
To assess the damage of the vehicle and to entertain the claim, the OP Insurance Company had the right to make a proper investigation. But the Complainant did not provide the necessary relevant documents required in connection with the investigation. The requisition of the documents as stated above made by the investigating agency does not appear to be unjustified and unfair.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this District Commission is of the view that there was no deficiency of service on the OP Insurance Company’s part and unfortunately in terms of the stipulated terms and conditions of the policy the complainant cannot be entitled to reimbursement of the cost of repair or any other costs.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the complaint case no.79/2021 cannot be allowed and the same stands dismissed on contest with no order as to costs. Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgements/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
