West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/175/2017

Sri Debabrata Pramanik - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Bijoy Mookhopadhyay

14 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

   Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and

Sagarika Sarkar, Member.   

Complaint Case No.175/2017

Sri Debabrata Pramanik S/o-Late Rabindra Nath Pramanik,

Vill.Rajnagar,P.O.Goalghat, P.S.Panskura,

                                                                                 Dist.PurbaMedinipur                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                        …….…..……Complainant.

                                                                                                             Vs.

1. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Station Road,

P.O.-Midnapore, Dist.-Paschim Medinipur

2. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office

at Tamluk Padumbasan, P.O.-Tamluk, Dist.-Purba Medinipur

3. The Regional Manager, National Insurance Co, Ltd., CRO-II,

8 no. India Exchange Place, Kolkata-700001

4. The Manager, Indusind Bank Ltd., Tamluk Branch Office,

P.O.-Tamluk, Dist.-Purba Medinipur.

                                                                                                            ……….………O.Ps.

                For the Complainant:  Mr. Asim Kumar Dutta, Advocate.

                  For the O.P.             : Mr. Mirza Md. Galib Chowdhury, Advocate.

                                                 

                                                         

                                                                              Date of filing:-15/11/2017

                                                                              Decided on: - 14/06/2018

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President –This consumer complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act has been filed by the complainant Sri Debabrata Pramanik against the above named O.P.-Insurance Company, alleging deficiency in service on their part.

               Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows:-

                                                                                                                     Contd….P/(2).

 

                                                                                  (2)

                        The complainant is the son and legal heir of Rabindranath Pramanik @ Rabindra Pramanik, since deceased. During his life time, Rabindranath Pramanik purchased a Maruti EECO Car being No.WB-30G/9352  after taking loan of Rs.1,80,000/-from the O.P.No.4-Indusind Bank Ltd., Tamluk Branch and he registered his said vehicle vide registration No. WB-30G/9352  and he also insured his vehicle with the      O.P.2-National Insurance Co. Ltd. vide policy no.150305/31/14/6100011603 covering the period from 31.10.2014 to 30.10.2015. In the said package policy, Rs.5,100/- was paid for own damage of the car, Rs.1,332/- for 3rd party, Rs.200/- p.a.to unnamed 4 passengers and Rs.50/- for W.C.to employee. Rabindranath Pramanik had also a LMV Driving Licence vide No.4058/2011(T) valid from 23.8.2011 to 12.10.2018. On 16.6.2015 at about 4.30 a.m., while said Rabindranath Pramanik was driving his car, then on N.H.6 near Madpur Bus Stoppage under Kharagpur (L) P.S., the said car met with an accident. As a result of such accident, the entire front portion of the car was badly damaged and the father of the complainant sustained bleeding injuries and he died at Midnapore Medical College & Hospitlal within a short time. On the basis of complaint lodged by unknown person, Kharagpur (L) P.S. Case No.319/15 dt.16.6.15 was started and the vehicle was seized. The complainant also informed the O.P.No.2 with a request for assessing own damage claim and the said claim was also registered vide No.150305/31/15/6190000117. After release of the damaged car from  the police station, the same was taken to the garage of Bhandari Automobiles at Kharagpur for necessary repairing and the mechanic of the said garage also gave an estimate of the damaged vehicle. O.P.No.2 deputed a surveyor for assessing the loss and  damage of the vehicle and the complainant handed over all necessary  documents and estimate to the said surveyor who inspected the vehicle on three times in the said garage. On several dates the complainant, being the son and legal heir of Rabindranath Pramanik, met O.P.No.2 in his office and requested for settlement of the claim. Finally on 20.4.2016, the O.P.No.2 repudiated the claim of insurance on flimsy ground as NO CLAIM. It is stated that due to financial crisis, the complainant failed to pay the installment amount of car loan and therefore O.P.No.4, the financier seized the vehicle from the said garage and sold out the car. Hence the complaint, praying for directing  the O.P.to make payment of Rs.3,50,000/- as repairing cost of the vehicle with interest and for compensation and litigation cost.

                 All  the  4 O.Ps.  appeared in this case. O.P.No.1 to 3 have contested this case by filing a written version O.P.No.4 did not file any written version and also did not subsequently appear to contest the case for which  the case was ordered to be heard                ex-parte against O.P.No.4.

                Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the  O.P.-Insurance Company that the complainant in his letter dt.-13.1.2016 stated  that                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Contd…….…..P/3

 

                                                          

                                                                                                          ( 3 )

                     the deceased was the sole rider in the car at the time of the accident but from the survey report and the F.I.R. it was found that there were  total three persons in the car at the time of accident and there is no clear picture as to who was driving the car at the time of accident. It is stated that the complainant did not give any reply to the letter dt.19.1.19.1.2016, sent by A.K.Sinha, the investigator of the O.P.-Company and he also did not file any charge sheet of the police case. Further according to the O.P. the complainant did not file actual cost, so incurred for repairing the car supported by bills and vouchers and he did not say that he himself paid any repairing charges of the vehicle. The complainant filed a M.A.C.C. case but in spite of request, he did not file  copy of the M.A.C.C. case. It is therefore stated by the O.P. that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O,P,-Insurance Company and the present petition of complaint is therefore liable to be rejected.

                        To prove his case, the complainant has examined himself as P.W.1 and the documents, relied upon by the complainant, have been marked as exbt.-1 to 15 respectively.   

          On the other hand, O.P.-Insurance Company has examined one Banamali Routh as O.P.W.1 and during his evidence one, authorization letter was marked as exbt.-A.

                                     Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer ?
2. Is the case complainant a consumer under the O.P.-Insurance Company ?
3. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-Insurance Company ?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?

                                                      Decision with reasons

              Point No.1 :-

            Maintainability of this case has not been questioned at the time of final hearing of this case. We also find nothing adverse regarding maintainability of this case.

            This point is accordingly decided in the affirmative and in favour of the complainant.

               Point No.2:-

                          It is not denied and disputed that Rabindranath Pramanik, since deceased, was the father of the complainant and he was the registered owner of the vehicle in   question being No.WB-30G/9352 which was damaged in an accident and for which claim of   Insurance was filed. The present complainant, being the son and legal heir of the registered owner of the vehicle, is definitely a ‘consumer’ under the O.Ps as per provision of C.P Act.

                                                                                                     Contd………….P/4

                                                                         

                                                                                                                  ( 4 )

                     This point is therefore decided in favour of the complainant.

             Point nos. 3 :-

                               It is not denied and disputed that Rabindranath Pramanik @ Rabindra       Pramnanik, since deceased, was the registered owner of the vehicle in question being registration no.WB-30G/9352, a Maruti EECO car. It is undisputed that the said vehicle was duly insured with the O.P.-National Insurance Co. Ltd. vide Policy No.150305/31/14/6100011603 covering the period from 31.10.2014 to 30.10.2015. It is also undisputed that within the validity period of the policy, said vehicle met with an accident on 16.6.2015 and due to such accident, the car was badly damaged and Rabindranath Pramanik, who was driving the vehicle, was severely injured and he died at Midnapore Medical College & Hospital. It is undisputed that after the said occurrence, the complainant, being the legal heir and son of the deceased-owner of the vehicle, submitted claim of insurance before the O.P.-Insurance Company and his claim was registered vide claim No.150305/31/15/6190000117 and on receipt of such claim, the O.P.-Insurance Company also engaged a surveyor/investigator. According to the O.P. their investigator Sri A.K.Sinha sent a letter dt.-13.1.2016 to the complainant thereby asking him to answer 6 queries but in spite of repeated reminders the complainant did not give reply to such questions for which the O.P.-Insurance Company vide their letter dt.-20.4.2016 (exbt.-14) treated the claim as NO CLAIM. To prove their said case, the O.P. Insurance Company has not examined their said investigator in this case and no survey report regarding assessment of loss & damage of the vehicle in question has been filed particularly when P.W.1,the complainant,  stated in his cross-examination that after receiving the said letter dt.13.1.2016 of the investigator, he went to the O.P.-Insurance Company and gave reply to such questions. After such answer, no suggestion was given to the complainant (PW-1) by the O.P.-Insurance Company that he did not give reply to such queries on going to the office of the O.P. Surprisingly, nowhere in the written objection the O.P.-Insurance Company has stated that their investigator/surveyor had been to the garage of Bhandari Automobiles for inspecting the damaged vehicle and for assessing the loss/damage of the vehicle in question. The sole witness Banamali Routh (O.P.W.-1), who deposed on behalf of the O.Ps.,  in his cross-examination has admitted that during the period of insurance, the vehicle was damaged in an accident and the complainant intimated the company regarding such occurrence but he cannot say who was appointed as surveyor. We have already stated that no survey report has been filed  in this case. It is therefore held that the O.P. has

            deficiency in service in not settling the claim of insurance by appointing a surveyor for

             assessing loss/damage and by treating the claim of insurance as NO CLAIM vide their               

           letter  dt.-20.4.2016(exbt.-14). 

                                                                                                                                                     Contd……..…….P/5

 

                                                                     

                                                                                            ( 5 )   

                                          This point is accordingly decided in favour of the complainant and against the O.Ps.  

            Point No.4:-

                                In this case the complainant has prayed for an award of Rs.3,50,000/- towards repairing  cost of the vehicle in question on the basis of an estimate issued by Bhandari  Automobiles. No person of that Bhandari Automobiles has been examined in this case to prove the said estimate. It appears from the cross-examination of P.W.1 that the said vehicle was not at all repaired in the said garage as the financier i.e. Indusind Bank Ltd.  (O.P.No.-4) had taken away possession of the vehicle from  Bhandari Automobiles. It is also the case of the complainant that the said financier sold out the vehicle after such seizure of the vehicle from the Bhandari Automobiles. In such circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get 75% of the IDV value of the vehicle. From the policy in question (exbt.-2)we find that the IDV of the vehicle on the date of the policy was Rs.2,26,670/-. 75% of the said IDV value is Rs.1,70,003/- and the complainant is entitled to the said amount of Rs.1,70,003/- as own damage claim of the policy in question. That apart, the complainant is also entitled to get compensation for mental pain and agony, interest and an award of cost.

                               This point is accordingly decided in favour of the complainant.           
                             All the points are accordingly disposed of.

      In the result, the complaint case succeeds in part.

                                            Hence, it is,

                                                     Ordered,        

                                    that the complaint case no.175/2017 is allowed in part on contest against O.P. nos. 1 to 3 with  cost and dismissed ex parte without cost against O.P. no.4 .  O.P. no.1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.1,70,003/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of this case till payment to the complainant. They are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-  to the complainant.

All such payment shall be made within a month from this date of order i.d. 8% penal interest p.a., payable in favour of Legal Aid Fund, shall carry over the awarded amount 

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

           Dictated & corrected by me

                     Sd/-B. Pramanik.                         Sd/- Sagarika Sarkar                      Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                       President                                             Member                                     President 

                                                                                                                                  District Forum

                                                                                                                              Paschim Medinipur