Tripura

StateCommission

A/20/2022

Smt. Mamata Nath - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Mr. D. Debnath, Mr. K. S. Sarma

11 Nov 2022

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Agartala : West Tripura

Case No. A.20/2022

 

1. Smt. Mamata Nath,

W/o Late Sanjit Nath

 

2. Sri Suman Nath,

S/o Late Sanjit Nath

 

3. Smt. Sumita Nath

D/o Late Sanjit Nath

 

All are the residents of Subhash Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Kanchanpur,

District - North Tripura.

       .… … … … Appellants/Complainants

Vs

 

1. The Divisional Manager,

The United India Insurance Company Limited,

R.M.S. Chowmuhani, Agartala, District - West Tripura,

Pin: 799001.

                                                               … … … … Respondent/Opposite Party

 

 

 

Before

 

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arindam Lodh

President

State Commission

 

Dr Chhanda Bhattacharyya

Member

State Commission

 

Mr. Kamalendu Bikash Das

Member

State Commission

 

 

Present:

For the Appellants:                              Mr. Diptanu Debnath, Adv.

For the Respondent:                             Mr. Sandip Dutta Choudhuri, Adv.

Date of Hearing &Delivery of Judgment:      11.11.2022.

 

J U D G M E N T [ORAL]

Heard Mr. Diptanu Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Sandip Dutta Choudhuri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company.

2. Challenge in this appeal is the impugned order dated 30.05.2022, wherein, the learned District Commission held that the complaint filed by the appellants-complainants was not maintainable and thus rejected the claim application.

3.     We have perused the impugned order dated 30.05.2022. The background of the case may be stated here-in-under:-

        The husband of the appellant-complainant no.1 died out of electrocution. It is stated by the appellant-complainants that after washing his vehicle, the deceased husband of the complainant no.1 opened the door and while wanted to start the vehicle by inserting the key, at that time, the entire vehicle got electrocuted and he died out of such electrocution.

        The vehicle was insured and premium also was paid against personal coverage. The said fact is not disputed.

        The appellants-complainants submitted a representation to the Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. informing the said fact and claimed compensation as per policy, but it was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that the appellants-complainants are not entitled to get compensation as such type of accident is not covered by conditions of the policy.

4.     Being aggrieved, the appellants-complainants, i.e. the wife of the deceased along with two others, filed a complaint application before the learned District Commission, West Tripura, Agartala praying for compensation.

5.     The complaint application was admitted by the learned District Commission. On receipt of notice, the Insurance Company i.e. the respondent herein, appeared before the learned District Commission by filing an application that the complaint itself was not maintainable.

 6.    The learned District Commission accepted the contention of the Insurance Company on the ground that the vehicle was appeared to be in stationery condition and the deceased sustained injury due to electrocution. It has further been stated in the order that the complainants filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation for the death of the husband of the complainant no.1 and the same was rejected by the learned Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal as well as by the Hon’ble High Court on appeal.

7.     We have considered the findings of the learned District Commission as well as the submissions advanced before us by the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

8.     Mr. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant at the very outset submits that he did not get any opportunity before the learned District Commission even to make any submission. He fairly submits that though he submitted memo. of appearance but could not reach the Court of the learned District Commission when the matter was called upon, and before his arrival, the matter was disposed of and the impugned order was passed on the basis of the application filed by the respondent-Insurance Company.

9.     Mr. Dutta Choudhuri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company would contend that the learned District Commission has correctly interpreted the terms and conditions laid down in the policy of the Insurance Company and there is no illegality in the findings of the learned District Commission.

10.   In view of the submissions of the learned counsels, we have the opportunity to peruse the terms and conditions laid down in the policy. It is clear from the policy that the owner of the vehicle comes within the purview of the conditions of the policy. The learned District Commission did not notice the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, wherein opportunity was given to the appellants-complainants to approach the appropriate Forum if it is found that the victim was covered by any personal accident insurance.

        Thereafter, the appellants-complainants filed the instant complaint before the learned District Commission having found that the victim was covered by the policy of the insurer.

        As we said earlier that after perusal of the policy conditions, we are satisfied that the deceased husband of the complainant no.1 comes within the purview of the policy conditions as envisaged in the policy document which was valid from 17/02/2013 to midnight of 16/02/2014 and the accident occurred on 25.07.2013 i.e. within the validity of the policy.

11.   As such, we set aside and quash the impugned order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the learned District Commission, West Tripura, Agartala holding that the claim application of the appellants-complainants is well maintainable. However, the matter is remitted back to the learned District Commission to decide the quantum of compensation having treated the complaint as maintainable. Since, the parties to the lis are present before this Commission, it prompts us to fix a specific date for adducing evidence as the matter is pending from 2013.

12.     Accordingly, we direct the parties to appear before the learned District Commission on 2^nd December, 2022 when both the appellants and respondent shall adduce their respective evidence. After recording the evidence of both the parties, the learned District Commission shall pass necessary order in accordance with law within 2 (two) weeks.

Send down the LCRs along with a copy of this order immediately.

A copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsels appearing for the parties.