West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/129/2016

Sri Arun Kumar Bag - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

24 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

                                                                                                      and

                                                                                           Sagarika Sarkar, Member

   

Complaint Case No.129/2016

Sri Arun Kumar Bag, S/o Lt. Amullya Kumar Bag, Village Ashkola, P.O. Dhangri, P.S Belibera, District-Paschim  Medinipur.                       ……………Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

1) The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Medinipur Division, Station Road, P.O. & Town Medinipur,  Dist. Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721101,

2)The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Contai Branch, Sreerupa Cinema Road, P.O. & Town Contai, P.S. Contai, Dist. Purba Medinipur, PIN-72401.…......……….….Opp. Parties.

                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Nepal Khamrai, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Chowdhury, Advocate.

                                                 

Decided on: -24/05/2017

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – This is the case u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, filed by the complainant Sri Arun Kumar Bag against the O.P.- The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and the Branch Manager. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

                           Facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant is the owner of a Tata Safari vehicle being no.WB-34AD/2616 and his said vehicle was duly insured with the O.P.-National Insurance Company Ltd vide policy

Contd………………P/2

 

 

( 2 )

no.150303/31/610007879 covered of the period from 21/3/2014 to 20/3/2015.  On 05/11/2014, the said vehicle of the complainant while proceeding towards Rantua from Feco side met with an accident at Shibanandapur Chalk and as a result of such accident, the frontal portion of the vehicle was totally damaged and other parts were also effected.  Police went to the spot and seized the vehicle under a seizure list.  On requisition of the police, M.V Inspector examined the vehicle on 10/12/2014 and after receiving court’s order, the said vehicle was released thereafter.  After such release, the complainant intimated the O.P.-Insurance Company’s  nearest branch office at  Baripada regarding such accident for getting own damage claim and the Branch Manager of the said office asked the complainant to submit estimate and accordingly the complainant submitted the estimate of repairing cost of Rs.12,82,628/-,  so issued by Panda Motors, an authorized service station.  Seven days thereafter, the Branch Manager of Baripada Branch told the complainant that he made contact with the Contai Branch and according to direction of the Manager of the said Branch, complainant submitted claim form on 24/02/2015.  Thereafter the vehicle was inspected by the surveyor, so appointed by the O.P.-Insurance Company and after long enquiry from the side of the Company as well as the concerned surveyor, the complainant submitted his consent letter thereby mentioning agreed settlement amount of Rs.4,50,000/- as total constructive loss and Salvage (Damage) on 23/6/2016 but till now the O.P.-Insurance Company has not paid any such amount.  Hence the complaint,  praying for directing the O.P.-Insurance Company to pay the agreed settlement amount of Rs.4,50,000/- as constructive loss and Salvage (Damage) along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of submission of claim form and for compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.

O.P. Insurance Company has contested this case by filing a joint written objection.

                       Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the O.P.-Insurance Company that the process of claim was started and said claim of insurance is still under process and has not yet been repudiated by the O.P.-Insurance Company.  It is therefore stated by the O.P.-Insurance Company that since they have not yet repudiated the claim, so the present case is

Contd………………P/3

 

 

( 3 )

 pre-matured and there is no deficiency in service on their part.  The O.Ps. therefore claim dismissal of the complaint with cost.

 

                                                                 Point for decision

1)Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?

2)Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.-Insurance Company?

3)Is the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?   

Decision with reasons

                 For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

               At the very outset, it is to be mentioned here that in this case,  neither the complainant nor the O.P.s have adduced any sort of evidence whatsoever but they have filed some documents, so relied upon by them.  Admittedly, the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing no.WB-34AD/2616.  It is not denied and disputed that the said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 05/11/2014 and after such accident, that vehicle was seized by the police and after obtaining court’s order, the vehicle was released and thereafter the complainant submitted own damaged claim before the nearest Branch office of the O.P.-Insurance Company at Baripada.  Admittedly, his claim was also processed by appointing a surveyor to access the actual loss.  During pendency of this case, O.Ps filed a survey note dated 28/04/2014 in respect of the said vehicle and relying upon the said survey note, Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted that the surveyor, so appointed by the O.P.-Insurance Company, assessed the total loss at Rs.4,50,000/- but the O.P.-Insurance Company has not yet disbursed the said amount.  From the said survey note, we find that it was recommended by the Regional Manager of the O.P. that as per recommendation of the Deputy Manager and Administrative Officer repudiation letter should be issued.  Although admittedly no such repudiation letter has yet been received but at the time of hearing of argument, Ld. Lawyer for the O.P.-Insurance Company submitted that in the said survey note it was recommended that for violation of drivers clause and policy condition,  the claim should be repudiated on the ground that the driver,  who was driving the vehicle at the material time of accident, violated the provision of driver’s clause as he had no licence to drive the private

Contd………………P/4

 

                                                                                                   ( 4 )

car. Ld. Lawyer for the O.P.-Insurance Company also submitted that recommendation for repudiation of the claim was also suggested on the ground that the claim was submitted after 2 months from the date of accident.  Although in their W/O, the O.P.-Insurance Company has submitted that the claim has not yet been repudiated but from this survey note and the recommendation of the Regional Manager, we find that the O.P.-Insurance Company is eager to repudiate the claim of the complainant. Relying upon the said “survey note” and recommendation of the Deputy Manager of the O.P. -Insurance Company, Ld. Lawyer of the O.P. submitted that the claim of the complainant may be treated as repudiated.  Now let us considered as to whether the said two grounds for repudiation of the claim of insurance of the complainant are justified or not.  As about the objection regarding delay of 2 months in lodging the claim form is fatal or not.  On this score, we find that after the accident of the vehicle on 5/11/2014, police seized the said vehicle and after obtaining release order from the court, the complainant got possession of the vehicle in the middle of month of December, 2014 and immediately thereafter he submitted claim of insurance on 28/12/2014 before the Branch Office of the O.P.-Insurance Company at Baripada.  In such circumstances, the delay in lodging the claim is not at all fatal for repudiating his claim of insurance.  As about the other objection regarding violation of driver’s clause we find that it has been recommended in the survey note that the driver of the vehicle at the material time of accident was possessing LMV-T (Goods) license but he was not possessing any driving license to drive LMV car.  It is stated that the vehicle in question was LMV car and as such the driver of the vehicle was not authorized to drive the LMV car as he had license to drive the LMV-T (Goods) car.  Since the driver admittedly processing a license to drive heavy motor vehicle, so he has not violated the driver’s clause by driving a light motor vehicle at the time of accident.  It is also well settled that when a driver was possessing license to drive heavy motor vehicle, so he cannot be held to have violated the driver’s clause by driving a light motor vehicle at the time of accident.  In that view of the matter, recommendation for repudiation of the claim of insurance is not at all justified and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.-Insurance Company in settling the claim of insurance, so submitted by the complainant.  We find from the said survey note that the assessment of surveyor on net of salvage basis was

Contd………………P/5

 

 

( 5 )

 Rs.4,50,000/- and after deduction  of 25% for non-standard  basis and compulsory excess,  the assessment of loss comes to Rs.3,35,500/- and we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get the said amount of Rs.3,35,500/- towards his claim of insurance in question and we are inclined to allow the same.

                 All the points are accordingly disposed of.

                 In the result, the complaint case succeeds.

 

                                                  Hence, it is,

                                                     Ordered,

                                             that the complaint case no.129/2016 is allowed on contest with cost against the O.P.-Insurance Company.  O.P.-Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.3,35,500/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint.  O.Ps  are also further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.  All such payment shall be made within a month from this date of order.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

  

    Dictated & corrected by me

 

 

               President                                       Member                             President 

                                                                                                          District Forum

                                                                                                       Paschim Medinipur