THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE No. CC-  320 of  2022

 

Sri Smt. Soumali Roy,

W/O- Lt. Debajyoti Sarkar,

 

Sri Devanka Sarkar

S/O- Late Debajyoti Sarkar,

 

Smt. Mira Sarkar,

Wife of late Kanti Lal Sarkar.

 

Residents of Hapania,

Near TMC Hospital,

P.S. Amtali, P.O.- ONGC Colony,

District- West Tripura- 799014. ..............Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

The Branch Manager,

Royal Sundaram

General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Ground Floor, Dasgupta Villa,

P.O.- Kunjaban, P.S. N.C.C.,

Agartala, District- West Tripura,

Pin- 799006. .............Opposite party.

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri A. Bhattacharjee,

  Learned Advocates.

  

For the O.P. : None Appeared.   

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 05.12.2022.

 

J U D G M E N T

1. The case arose due to being a complaint petition filed by: (i) Smt. Soumali Roy, W/o- Late Debajyoti Sarkar (here-in-after referred to as ‘Complainant-1’) (ii) Sri Debanka Sarkar, S/o- Late Debajyoti Sarkar (iii) Mira Sarkar, W/o of Late Kantilal Sarkar having their residence at Hapania, Amtali, West Tripura (here-in-after all the petitioners jointly referred to as ‘Complainants’) against the Branch Manager, Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co, Ltd. Kunjaban, Agartala (here-in-after referred to as ‘O.P.’) U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2. The averments of the case, in short, are that Late Debajyoti Sarkar died on 08.09.2020 in a road traffic accident at Grantali, Indiranagar, under Melaghar Police Station while he was moving towards Sonamura by driving his own vehicle (Maruti Alto) bearing a registration No. TR 01 BJ 0579. The fatal accident took place owing to a speeding Bolero pick up mini truck bearing a registration No.TR 07 B 1579 which was approaching from opposite direction along the wrong side being dashed and collided with the vehicle of Late Debajyoti Sarkar. The driver on the wheel of the Bolero pick up mini truck was driving the vehicle carelessly and rashly. The victim Late Debojyoti Sarkar who sustained severe injuries on his head and other vital parts of his body was, immediate to the accident, rushed to the Melaghar Hospital where he was declared as dead. Thereafter, a post-mortem examination was carried out over the body of Late Debajyoti Sarkar. On account of the accident, the vehicle was badly damaged. The damaged vehicle is now lying in Jain Udyog, a Maruti showroom-cum-workshop at A.D Nagar, Agartala and awaiting repair. The deceased was holding a learner driving license at the time of the accident. The deceased was driving the vehicle along with a co-driver, namely, Sri Bhaskar Saha S/o Sri Badal Saha of Rajghat, Melaghar by his side and; Sri Saha did possess an effective driving license as per revelation made by the injured eye-witness and in the police investigation report. The Complainant-1 initially informed a wrong name of the co-driver to the investigator engaged by the O.P., due to her not being the eye-witness and belated collection of information thereof caused due to the then pandemic situation. Subsequently, on being learnt the name of the actual co-driver from police investigation report, she informed the same to the O.P. The ill-fated vehicle of the deceased was insured with the O.P. vide policy No. MOBL 190992 dated 20.09.2019 with a Personal Accident (PA) coverage for owner-driver of Rs.15 lacs. A total amount of Rs.42,066/- was incurred by deceased Debajyoti Sarkar for having the insurance policy. The policy had a coverage period of one year effective from 20.09.2019 to19.09.2020. The Complainant-1 happened to be the declared nominee of the policy.

On 08.09.2020 at about 4.30 PM, immediately after the ill-fated Maruti Alto vehicle met the horrendous accident which caused the death of Late Debajyoti Sarkar, the information for such accident was registered as police case vide Melaghar P.S. No.2020 MNG 042 under section 279/304 A of the IPC dated 08.09.2020. At the time of the accident, five persons were on board including the owner-cum-driver deceased Debajyoti Sarkar. All the other four persons traveling with the deceased were also sustained injuries. 

The ill-fated vehicle was seized by the police immediately after the accident and later on released on bail as per order of the appropriate Learned Court.  Thereafter, at the instance of the O.P., the vehicle was shifted and placed to/ with M/s Jain Udyog for repair of the same. M/s Jain Udyog prepared an estimate of Rs.3,45,620/- towards repairing charges of the vehicle. 

 

That after the death of Debajyoti Sarkar the Complainant-1 preferred her claims with the O.P. for providing the agreed Personal Accident (PA) insurance benefit against the death of the owner-driver and the repairing cost of the vehicle in accordance to the policy document. She also submitted appropriate papers/ documents on two occasions dated 05.10.2020 and 21.12.2020 for such claim.

 

The O.P., by way of their engaged Investigator, had sought few clarifications/ quarries on 24.02.2021 in connection with the death claim. The Complainant-1 submitted the reply of the quarries to the O.P. (Investigator) on 31.03.2021. Thereafter, as a follow-up actions, the complainant pursued the matter with the O.P. several occasions by way of letters from time to time to settle her claim as per policy terms.

 

Being aggrieved due to denial of payments over her legitimate claims by the O.P., the Complainants filed this complaint petition seeking a direction to the O.P. to release the PA cover amount and repairing cost of the vehicle with interest @ 12% P.A. for causing delay along with a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for deficiency of service and harassing the Complainants.

 

On admission of the complaint petition, notice has been served to the O.P. But despite allowing adequate opportunity and time to appear before the Commission and to contest the case by submitting written statement, the O.P. failed to act in taking steps. Hence, the case proceeded exparte against the O.P.

 

3. An evidence-in-chief of Smt.Soumali Roy as P.W.1 and another evidence-in-chief of Sri Bhaskar Saha as P.W.2 have been submitted from the side of the Complainants by way of affidavits. The documents submitted by the Complainants by way of firisthi dated 12.09.2022 have been exhibited and marked as Exhibit- 1 Series.

 

4. Now, the complaint petition has to be decided on merit as follows:

(i) Whether the O.P. has committed any deficiency of service against the Complainants?

(ii) Whether the Complainants are entitled to receive the relief, as being sought for?

(ii) If the answer of the serial no. (ii) is ''Yes'' then what is the extent of entitlement of the relief?

 

5. We have heard the argument made out from the side of the Complainants. It is pleaded by Learned advocate Mr. A. Bhattacharjee on behalf of the Complainants that despite having a PA coverage for the owner-driver under the policy, the Complainants are being denied by the insurer O.P. in releasing the insured amount. The repairing cost of the damaged vehicle is also not being re-imbursed by the O.P. by defying the terms of the Policy document issued by the O.P.  It is also pleaded that O.P. took some initiatives at the primary stage over the claim petition submitted by seeking some clarifications, through their engaged Investigator, and such were quickly responded by the Complainant-1 by replying back with the answers of the quarries. But, then on, the O.P. went into a state of silence and paid no heed to the requests made by the Complainant-1 as follow-up actions by way of series of communications at the later stage. It is also submitted by the Learned counsel that at the time of driving the vehicle by deceased Debajyoti Sarkar, a co-driver, namely, Sri Bhaskar Saha was accompanying him. Sri Saha also sustained injuries due to the accident and got treated in the Melaghar Hospital. Besides, there were other three persons as co-rider who were traveling in the ill-fated vehicle The police report also suggests accordingly about the same facts. It has been categorically submitted by Learned Advocate Sri A. Bhattacharjee that at the time of accident, deceased Late Debajyoty Sarkar was carrying a learner driving license whereas the co-driver, Sri Bhaskar Saha was possessing an effective driving license and; which bears a No. TR0720180014326. It has also been submitted that the driving license of Sri Saha was seized by the police immediately after the accident and which is apparent from the final charge sheet report submitted by the Melaghar Police Station. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the badly damaged vehicle was initially got seized by the Police and subsequently, got released on bail by the order of the appropriate Learned Court and the same was placed with M/s Maruti Udyog, a Repairing Service Centre. M/s Maruti Udyog has prepared an estimate of Rs.3,45,620/- for repairing the vehicle and, according to that estimate, a claim for payment of the same was submitted to the O.P.  But there had been a total inaction on the part of the O.P. to make any payment whatsoever in respect of the P.A. cover of the deceased as well as the repairing charges of the vehicle.  

 

6. We have travelled over the evidences-in-chief submitted on behalf of the Complainants and all the relevant documents, as relied upon by the Complainants. It is found that the deceased Sri Debajyoti Sarkar had an insurance policy for his vehicle with the O.P. in consideration for an amount of Rs.32,066/- (Rs. 10,722/- + Rs.21344/-). The policy unequivocally suggests the O.P. has to take a liability for providing a PA coverage for owner-driver of Rs.15 lakhs and upto a declared insured value Rs. 399882/- for the ill-fated vehicle. Now, it is appeared that the insured vehicle met an accident on 08.09.2020 and which was within the validity period of coverage, so mentioned under the policy. It is also observed by us that the matter was duly informed to the concerned police station registering a case vide Melaghar P.S. Case no. 2020 MLG 042 U/S 279/304 (A) of the IPC dated 08.09.2020. The owner-driver Late Debajyoti Sarkar was grievously injured and was brought to the Melaghar Hospital where he declared as dead. At the time of driving the vehicle by the deceased, he was accompanied by a co-driver, namely, Sri Bhaskar Saha who was carrying an effective driving license. Sri Bhaskar Saha has submitted his evidence-in-chief by way of affidavit while affirming his accompany by the side of the deceased as a co-driver.  

7. After taking place of the accident the Complainant-1, who is the wife of the deceased Debajyoti Sarkar and the legal nominee of the policy, preferred the claim with the O.P. for releasing the PA coverage for the death of Late Debajyoti Sarkar amounting to Rs.15 lakhs, as being the owner-driver of the ill-fated vehicle.  She also preferred a claim of Rs.3,45,620/- as repairing cost of the damaged vehicle, as being assessed and estimated towards repairing expenses by M/S Jain Udyog, a repairing service centre at Agartala.

8. It also reveals from the documents relied upon, that the O.P. initially took some steps and initiatives in the form of seeking some documents from the Complainant-1 and sought answers of some queries made through their engaged Investigator. The Complainant-1, accordingly, filed reply while submitting the documents as per the requisitions of the O.P. (Investigator) along with answering the queries of the points raised by the O.P. (Investigator) on 31.03.2021.

9. But, since then on, the O.P. went into a state of utter silence and ignored the whole series of communications made by the Complainant-1 with them, which were undertaken by her as a matter follow-up and persuasive actions towards expeditious finalization of the claims. 

 

10. We, now, tend to opine that the investigation report/charge sheet submitted by the Melaghar P.S. in respect of the accident suggests that at the time of meeting the accident, the vehicle was boarded by five people including the owner-driver deceased Sri Debajyoti Sarkar and the co-driver Sri Bhaskar Saha. It transpires from the description of seizure articles, so indicated in the charge sheet, that Sri Bhaskar Saha the co-driver does hold an effective driving license (No.TR 0720180014326).

 

11. Now, as per the policy documents issued by the O.P., it has been specified that a person holding a learner driving license can also drive the vehicle and for such the person needs to satisfy the requirements of the Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989. Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 says, inter alia, that if an owner-driver drives a vehicle carrying a learner driving license, the person can drive the vehicle if a co-driver accompanies the person and the co-driver must possess an effective driving license. Here, the situation in the instant case since satisfies the condition and which, therefore, substantiates to establish the claim of PA cover submitted by the Complainant-1 in respect of deceased Debajyoti Sarkar. Further, it is also outlined in the policy document that the declared insured value of the vehicle is Rs. 399882/- which means that the liability of the cost of repairing the damages of the vehicle caused due to the accident up to such limit shall have to be borne by the O.P. 

 

12. Now, on appreciation of the documents and the points of argument put forth it is hold by us that the O.P. has shown utter negligence and dereliction in discharging their committed liability towards releasing the PA insured coverage and the repairing cost of the vehicle as per the policy conditions. They did not provide the policy benefits to the legal nominee of the deceased Debajyoti Sarkar nor had they rejected/ repudiated the claim by showing valid reasons. Such silence and inert action on the part of the O.P. is amounting to adopting of unfair trade practice by them. Furthermore, failing to release assured and committed benefits/ reliefs in terms of PA cover of the deceased and payment of repairing expenses of the vehicle to the Complainant-1 is considered by us as a deed to has been resorted by the O.P. in contravention of the policy conditions. Wherefore, such inaction on the part of the O.P. is on par with committing deficiency of service. 

 

13. Now, keeping the points explained in the aforegone paras in view, we hold an opinion that the Complainant-1 has been successful in proving the deficiency of service and adoption of unfair trade practice of/ by the O.P. to our satisfaction. We, therefore, direct the O.P. to pay the admissible P.A coverage of Rs. 15 lacs against the death of Late Debajyoti Sarkar caused due to the accident along with interest @ 7% P.A. on the amount to the Complainant-1. The ordered rate of interest shall be applicable from 04.05.2022, which is the date of filing the complaint petition. We also direct the O.P. to pay Rs.3,45,620/- as repairing cost of the damaged vehicle and a compensation of Rs.25,000/-for deficiency of service and being the Complainants subjected to the mental harassment and ordeal on account of it. We also direct that the O.P. shall pay the amounts within two months from the date of this judgment and failing which all the ordered payable amounts shall carry a flat rate of interest of 9% P.A. till realization of the amounts in full. 

14. Accordingly, all the points are decided. Supply copy of this judgment to both the parties free of cost.     

 

   

Announced.

 

 

SRI R. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.