Tripura

West Tripura

CC/29/2019

Sri Ashu Ranjan Debbarma. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, The United India Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.H.Debnath, Smt.U.Chanda, Mr.D.P.Ghosh

27 Jan 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 29 of 2019

Sri Ashu Ranjan Debbarma,
S/O. Sri Prabir Debbarma,
R/O.-Natungharia, West Kunjaban,
P.O.-Baramaidan-799205, P.S.-Teliamura,
District- Khowai Tripura ................................................................................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

    The Branch Manager,
    The United India Insurance Company Ltd.
    R.M.S. Chowmuhani, P.O.-Agartala-799001,
    P.S.-West Agartala,
    Dist.-West Tripura ........................................................................................ Opposite party.

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

SRI UMESH DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SMT. Dr BINDU PAL
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant            : Sri Haribal Debnath,
                          Smt. Uma Chanda,
                          Sri Dripta Pratim Ghosh,
                          Advocates.

For the O.P.                 : Sri  P. Gautam,
                      Sri Sumit Debnath,
                      Advocates.

            JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  27 / 01 /2020.

J U D G M E N T
              The Complainant Sri Ashu Ranjan Debbarma, set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaining deficiency of service by the O.P.
        Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant is the registered owner of the Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.TR-06-2530 which was duly insured with the O.P. United India Insurance Company Ltd., RMS Chowmuhani, Agartala. During the valid period of the insurance the Auto Rickshaw while plying on road on 04/03/2019 from Sarvang to Mandhai and while it was crossing Madhavbari it suddenly caught fire due to its mechanical problem. As a result it was badly damaged. The incident was immediately informed in writing to the O/C., Telimura P.S. and upon which Telimura P.S. G.D. Entry No.26 dated 04/03/2019 was made. On 06/03/2019 the Complainant made a prayer to the O.P. claiming payment of the insured amount in respect of his Auto Rickshaw having been damaged on account of the fire. But the O.P. did not make any response to the prayer and has failed to satisfy his claim.
    Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conduct of the O.P.,  the Complainant has filed the instant complaint before this Forum claiming in total Rs.2,18,805/- which comprises the assured sum of Rs.1,53,805/-, for deficiency of service Rs.25,000/-, for mental suffering and agony Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- along with interest @12% P.A. against the O.P.
    Hence this case.

2.    In due course of time notice were duly sent to the O.P. from the Forum.             
      On receiving notice from the Forum, the O.P. has appeared through his Advocate and submitted W.O. denying the contentions and claim of the Complainant. The O.P. has stated in his W.O. that when the Auto Rickshaw of the Complainant was damaged on account of fire it did not have valid route permit for plying on the road. The route permit bearing No.TR-99-CC-ARP-2018-1214 which was issued by the Transport Department to the Complainant against his Auto Rickshaw was valid from 17th May, 2018 to 16th September, 2018. So the period of permit in respect of the Auto Rickshaw was already expired long before the date of incident which occurred on 04/03/2019. Hence according to the O.P. the complainant is not entitled to get the insured amount / compensation from him due to violation of Section 3 read with Sec.149(2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 and also breach of policy conditions.                                                   
    Denying any sort of deficiency of service towards the Complainant, the O.P. urged before the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.
        

EVIDENCE ADDUCE BY THE PARTIES:-
3.        The Complainant examined himself as PW-I and submitted his examination in chief by way of affidavit. He has produced 11 documents. The documents on identification have been marked as Exhibit – 1 Series. The complainant was cross examined by the O.P. side.
         On behalf of the O.P.  one witness namely Smt. Vidhya Mishra, Administrative Officer, United India Insurance Company Ltd. was examined. The said witness was also cross examined by the Complainant side. The  witness has produced 03 documents. The documents on identification have  been  marked  as Exhibit -A Series.

4.        POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-
     (i) Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P towards the Complainant?
     (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/  relief as prayed for?          

    5.    DECISION   AND  REASONS  FOR  DECISIONS:-
           We have heard arguments from both sides.
    We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties, the evidence, both documentary and oral adduced by both sides. We have  also gone through the citations referred to by Learned Advocates of both sides.
    It is evident from the case record that the Complainant's Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.06-2530 while plying on the public road by it's driver on 04/03/2019 from Sarvang to Mandhai and while it was crossing Madhavbari it suddenly got badly damaged due to fire and that the incident of fire occurred due to it's mechanical problem. At that time the Auto Rickshaw was carrying passengers. The incident was immediately informed to the Officer-in-Charge, Telimura P.S. upon which G.D. Entry No.26 dated 04/03/2019 was made. The matter was also duly intimated to the O.P. Insurance Company. The Complainant on 06/03/2019 raised Insurance claim with the O.P. Insurance Company after observing all formalities. But the O.P. did not entertain the claim of the Complainant.    
    Learned Advocate appearing for the Complainant argued that the O.P. without any justifiable ground refused to entertain the claim of the Complainant. According to the Learned Advocate as the incident of fire of the subject Auto Rickshaw had occurred due to mechanical problem of the Auto Rickshaw which was beyond the control of the driver of the Auto Rickshaw and since the factum of the incident also got corroborated by the O.P”s surveyor's  report dated 12/07/2019, the O.P. aught to have satisfied the claim of the Complainant. It was also argued that the incident happened within the valid period of the Insurance Policy and that there was no violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy on the part of the Complainant. So Learned Advocate urged upon the Forum to allow the consumer complain and direct the O.P. to pay compensation as prayed for in the complaint.  
    Learned Advocate in support of his arguments has relied upon two decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(6)SCC at page 420 (Jitendra Kumar Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Another) and 2008(II) SCC at page 259 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal).  
    Per contra Learned Advocate appearing for the O.P. has contended that the O.P. had rightly refused to entertain the Insurance claim of the Complainant. He argued that when the incident of fire occurred the Complainant did not have valid route permit of his Auto Rickshaw which is a commercial vehicle meant for carry passengers and that there was no valid route permit of the Auto Rickshaw has also been admitted by the  complainant in his cross examination. Moreover, the copies of the route permit which have been filed and Exhibited by the Complainant and the O.P. itself show that the route permit expired / lapsed on 16/09/2018 which was long back before the date of incident occurred on 04/03/2019. Learned Advocate further argued that plying of Auto Rickshaw on public road without valid permit is an infraction of law as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as violation of section 66 read with section 149(2), (a),  (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This is also breach of policy conditions and as such according to the Learned Advocate the Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the O.P. Insurance Company. Learned Advocate in support of his arguments placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.6178 of 2004 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.13208/2003) and 6179/2004 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.13210/2003) decided on  21/09/2004 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharathamma and Ors.). Learned Advocate has thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.    

6.    We find that there was no denial from the Complainant side that when the Auto Rickshaw caught fire while it was plying on public road with passengers it did not have valid route permit. This is an instance of infraction of law as provided  U/S 66 read with section 149(2)  (a),  (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This is also breach of policy conditions and as such according to us the Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the O.P. Insurance Company. While arriving at this decision we have relied upon the citation referred to by Learned Advocate for the O.P. viz the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.6178 of 2004 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.13208/2003) and 6179/2004 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.13210/2003) decided on  21/09/2004 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharathamma and Ors.)
    The citations referred to by Learned Advocate for the Complainant do not appear to us applicable to the case in hand as the factual matrix of the referred cases do not match with the case in hand. Hence, we do not inclined to rely on those decisions.

 

7.       In view of the discussion made above, we find and hold that the Complainant has failed to make out a case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The O.P.  according to us can not be held liable for any sort of deficiency of service towards the Complainant.
       The issues framed above are answered accordingly against the Complainant but in favour of the O.P.  
    In the result, the Complaint filed by the Complainant Sri Ashu Ranjan Debbarma is dismissed without any costs.
      
                    Announced.

SRI  BAMDEB  MAJUMDER
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

SRI  UMESH  DAS
MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
 WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.  

 

 

 SMT. DR  BINDU  PAL
 MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA