IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC /180/2014 .
Date of Filing: 23.12.2014. Date of Final Order: 09.07 .2015.
Complainant: Rabindranath Saha, S/O Sailendranath Saha, 50/1, Kalikapur Road,
P.O. Cossimbazar Raj, P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. The Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Berhampore Division Office.
26/23/1, Sahid Surya Sen Road, P.O. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad.
2. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd,
Office of the Divisional Engineer & Divisional Manager, Raiganj (D) O & M
Division, P.O. Raiganj, Dist. Uttar-Dinajpur, Pin 733134
3. HDFC Bank Ltd. 37A, R.N. Tagore Road, P.O. Berhampore, Dt. Murshidabad.
Pin 742101.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ………………….President.
Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.
Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member
FINAL ORDER
Smt. Pranati Ali - Presiding Member.
Brief fact of the complainant’s case u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986, is that the complainant, Rabindranath Saha purchased a truck being No. WB-57B/2787 with a help of HDFC Bank OpNo.3 on the year 2012 and the said truck was insured with the OP No.1, National Insurance Company Ltd., being the Policy No. 154000/31/13/6300000960 from 26.04.2013 to 25.04.2014. The complainant used to pay his installments amount to the Op No.3 regularly. But on 13.03.2014 the said truck met with an accident at Raiganj , due to this accident , one Electric Pole was damaged and the Electric Department lodged an FIR against the complainant at Raiganj Police Station. So, the policy seized the said truck and the case started being No. 29/2014 before the Ld. Special Judges’ Court at Raiganj. The complainant appeared before the Court for get back his truck and the Ld. Court directed to the I.O. of Raiganj P.S. to do accordingly to return the vehicle to the complainant with a deposition of Rs.60, 000/- to the office of the OP No.2 i.e the Electric Office. So, the complainant paid Rs.59, 849/- and the said truck was released. Thereafter, on 01.09.2014 the complainant informed the whole matter regarding his truck to the OP No.1, with all relevant documents along with a claim of Rs.60,000/- , as because the time of accident was within the policy period. But the Op No.1/ Insurance Company remains silence. So, the complainant was bound to come to this Forum with a prayer of Rs.60, 000/- as claim amount along with Rs.10, 000/- as litigation cost and another Rs.10,000/- for harassment and mental agony.
At the time of admission hearing of this case, the OpNo.2/Electrify Department was struck off as an unnecessary party.
On the other hand, though notice was duly served to the OP No.1/Insurance Company, yet the company did not appear in this case. So, the proceeding runs ex parte against the OP No.1.
The OP No. 3 /HDFC Bank Ltd was the only one Opposite Party appeared in this case by filing written version where he denied all the material allegations raised by the complainant in his complaint. This OP also stated that the complainant himself expressed his allegation against the OP No.1/Insurance Company only. So this Op No.3 is not a necessary party in this case. As because the vehicle met the accident and claimed from the Insurance Company by the complainant as a policy holder, the whole matter is in between the complainant and the Insurance Company. This OP is only a financer of the vehicle, so he wants to be expunged from this case.
Now, the only consideration of this case is that whether the OP is liable for deficiency in service or not, and whether the complainant is eligible for any relief or not as he prayed for.
Decision with reason.
It is very pertinent to mention that the complainant submitted Xerox copies of some documents in support of his case.
Admitted position of the case is that the complainant purchased the truck from HDFC Bank and the said vehicle made an accident.
It is seen from the copy of FIR, seizure list and Ld. Court’s order that the said truck was made an accident with an electric pole and police seized the vehicle as well as started a case. Therefore, the complainant appeared before the Court of Special Judge (E), Raiganj to move the case against his vehicle. At last, on the basis of Court’s order, the complainant was able to get back his vehicle by depositing Rs.60,000/- (approximate) to the Electric Department. So, the complainant claimed the said amount to his Insurer/Op no.1 but OP No.1 was remained silence. All these matters revealed from the documents submitted by the complainant.
Perused all the documents in the record, we observed that the complainant obtained a policy against his truck which was proved by the Xerox copy of the policy. After accident and court case the said truck was released by depositing money. So the complainant claimed that amount to the Insurer as because the incident happened within the policy period, which was evident by the documents like policy certificate, claim letter, court order along with payment slip, submitted by the complainant. So, our considered view is that the claim to the OP No.1 by the complainant is reasonable . But though the Op No.1 is not responding. We are not clear about the view of the OP No.1, as because, he did not appear in this case to oppose the allegations raised by the complainant, but with the present documents it is crystal clear to us that the OPNo.1 had a deficiency in service on settlement of claimed amount of the complainant.
On the other hand record shows that the OpNo.3 /HDFC Bank appeared and want to be expunged from this case. In this regards our clear opinion is that the Op No.3 is true in his stand, because, the relation between the complainant and the OP No.3 is different from the issues of the case. The OP No.3 is a financer of the complainant, not an Insurer. For that reason, the complainant had no allegation and or no prayer of compensation against the OP No.3 in his complaint. So, the OP No.3 is really an unnecessary party in this case, so no effective order is required to be passed as against the OP No.3.
The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in conclusion that the complainant is able to prove his case beyond any doubt. So, the Opposite Party No.1 is liable to compensate the complainant and Op No.3 is exonerated from his liability and as such the complainant is entitled to get relief (s).
In the result, the case succeeds as against the OP No.1 /National Insurance Company Ltd. and failed as against OP no.3/HDFC Bank Ltd.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 180/2014 be and the same is hereby allowed ex parte as against the OP No.1/National Insurance Company Ltd. with a litigation cost of Rs.5000/- .
The OP No.3 is exonerated from his liability.
The OP No.1 /National Insurance Company Ltd is hereby directed to pay the claim amount a sum of Rs.60, 000/- with interest @ 9% pa. from the date of filing of this case to the complainant within two months from the date of this order failing which the OP No.1 have to pay Rs.50/- per day’s delay and the same is to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
Member Member President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum. Redressal Forum. Redressal Forum.
Murshidabad. Murshidabad. Murshidabad.
