Tripura

West Tripura

CC/46/2015

Sri Ratan Dasgupta. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Mrs.K.Roy, Mrs.S.Deb, Mr.H.Das.

28 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC-   46  of   2015

    Sri Ratan Dasgupta,
S/O- Late Surendra Dasgupta,
Gakulnagar, P.S- Bisalgarh,
District- Sipahijala, Tripura.        ...........Complainant.
    
             ___VERSUS___
             
The Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Agartala Divisional Office,
42, Akhaura Road, Agartala,
West Tripura.                .........Opposite parties.
    

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant         : Mrs. Kalyani Roy,
                       Mrs. Sarama Deb,
                       Mr. Haripada Das,
                       Advocates.

For the Opposite Parties        :  Smt. Mallika Debnath,
                       Mr. Bhabatosh Debnath,
                       Advocates.                                       
    

          
        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  28.03.2016

J U D G M E N T

           This case was filed by Ratan Dasgupta against the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. He alleged that his vehicle TR-01-A-4114 met an accident and he suffered injury. He was disabled by the accident. Being driver cum owner of the vehicle personal Accident coverage was there as per policy certificate issued by O.P. National Insurance Company Ltd. Accordingly he placed his demand  before the National Insurance Company. But his prayer was turned down. So, he filed this case praying for compensation of Rs.6,25,000/-.

2.        O.P. National Insurance Company Ltd. appeared, filed W/S and denied the claim. It is stated that the policy covered in case of death, permanent disablement not for any other injury. Matter was not informed to the Insurance company in right time. So, petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation.

3.        On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination.

        (I) Whether the policy covered personal Accident and the O.P. failed to pay compensation as per terms of the policy? 
        (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for deficiency of service of the O.P?

Petitioner side produced discharge certificate, FIR, Sonography Report, Prescription, Cash memo, Copy of Insurance Policy, Copy of permit of the vehicle of the complainant, copy of tax token, fitness, driving license, letter of information to Insurance company, charge sheet, Exhibit- 1 Series.
        Petitioner also examined one witness i.e., the Petitioner.

5.        O.P. on the other  hand produced the standard form for commercial vehicle. O.P. also examined one witness Senhashish Das, Administrative Officer of National Insurance Company Ltd.
    
Findings:

6.        We have gone through all the documentary evidence and oral evidence. The fact of accident is established by FIR, charge sheet. It is also not specifically denied. We have gone through the policy certificate. In the policy certificate it is found that compulsory P.A. coverage for owner driver premium was paid Rs.100/-. Limits of P.A. coverage liability is Rs.2 lac. Learned advocate for the O.P. argued that as per standard form for commercial vehicle the P.A. coverage is given to owner cum driver. It cover entitlement up to 100% in case of death, loss of 2 limbs, loss of eye sight or permanent disablement. Here in this case the petitioner is the owner, driver of vehicle. He did not suffer any permanent disablement or his death was not caused by any accident. So, he is not entitled to get any compensation. Admittedly the injury sustained by the complainant does not fall within one of the categories. In this circumstances now it is to be seen whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation under the Personal Accident Coverage Policy. 

7.        In this connection it is advantageous here to refer to the judgment dated 15.03.13 rendered by the Madras Court in CMA No. 2012, 2006 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Krishnan), wherein it is held that ''Insurance need not pay any compensation to any grievous injury or permanent disablement, arising out of the injuries except item No.1 to 4, specified in  Personal Accident Cover Policy, can not be accepted, as contract to Insurance, viz., Personal Accident Cover Policy for the owner-cum-driver, is also a Motor Transport Policy under IMT 15, recognized by the Motor Tariff Committee. As stated Supra, when this policies issued under the Insurance Act, are recognized by the Committee, subject to regulation and instructions, issued by the committee. It is not open to the Insurance companies to disown, their liability to pay compensation in respect of other bodily injuries. Wherein scales of compensation are not specifically provided.

In our considered opinion compensation are not specifically provided. There is no negative provision in the policy for no compensation will be paid in respect of bodily injuries. It is well settled that Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial legislation. In Rita Devi case AIR 2000 SC 1930 our Supreme Court held that ''motor vehicle is to advance the beneficial purpose under lying the enactment in preference to the construction, which stands to deviate the purpose.''

9.        In our considered opinion the ratio of law laid down by the Madras High Court in the above cited case is also applicable in the present case as the facts and circumstances of both the cases are similar. So, relying upon the judgment of the Madras High Court we hold that the complainant is entitled to get compensation for the injuries sustained under the Personal Accident Coverage Policy. The complainant in his evidence and complaint stated that his auto met accident under Bisalgarh P.S. As a result of accident he sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted to GBP Hospital on 13th July and discharged on 20th July, 2013, Ultra Sonography and other tests were also done. CT scan was also done. He was treated at Silchar Medical College as per prescription given. Prescription of Abhijit Chaterjee, M.D. also seen. Vouchers given for minimum amount. Total medical expenditure not shown by any proper evidence. There was trauma in the head also. In such a case petitioner is entitled to get cost of treatment for the injuries but clear evidence to support the cost of treatment not given. In the petition Rs.50,000/- written for the cost of treatment and Rs.50,000/- for cost of litigation. Considering the prolong treatment at Agartala, Silchar we consider that the cost of treatment will be Rs.35,000/- & for pain and suffering another Rs.15,000/- is allowed. As per decision of the Madras High Court petitioner is only entitled to get this not other loss of income. So, this amount of Rs.50,000/- petitioner is entitled to get along with cost of litigation Rs.5000/-. Total compensation given Rs.55,000/-. His policy coverage is Rs.2,00,000/- . So, petitioner is entitled to get this Rs.55,000/-. 

10.        In view of this our above findings this petition is partly allowed. In our considered view the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.55,000/- from the O.P. with litigation cost. We therefore, direct the Insurance company to pay the amount to the petitioner within a period of 2(Two) months, if not paid it will carry interest 9% P.A.       
                         

                     Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,  AGARTALA, 
WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,  AGARTALA,
WEST TRIPURA.