Tripura

West Tripura

CC/10/2015

Shri Narayan Debbarma. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Mr. B.Saha,Mr.S.Pal,Mr.S.Debnath.

28 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC-  10 of 2015

Sri Narayan Debbarma,
S/O- Sri Dhan Ch. Debbarma,
Behelabari( Lengtabari),
Champahour, Khowai,
District- Khowai,
Tripura.                    .............Complainant.
    
         ______VERSUS______

The National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Agartala Divisional Office, 
Akhaura Road, Agartala,
West Tripura District, 
Tripura.                       .........Opposite Party.
            

                    __________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    : Sri Bijan Saha,
                  Sri Saptarshi Pal and
                  Sri S. Debnath,
                  Advocates.
                                                         
For the Opposite Party    : Sri Partha Sarathi Chakraborty,
                  Advocate.

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  28.12.15

J U D G M E N T
        This  case arises on the complaint filed by Narayan Debbarma U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of service by Opposite party, National Insurance Company. 
2.        Fact of the case in short is that the vehicle of the complainant, Alto Car TR01/X-4075 was duly insured with the O.P. During the policy period the car met with an accident. Petitioner was the driver cum owner of the vehicle. He suffered injury by the accident. He was referred to G.B. Hospital and then was under treatment. He could not work for 6 months and suffered loss of Rs.80,000/-. For treatment he spent near about 1 lakh. Insurance coverage was for 2 lakhs. So, he claimed amount of Rs.3 lakhs to be paid by the O.P. Also claimed Rs.20,000/- for cost of litigation, Rs.30,000/- for mental & physical agony.     
3.        Opposite party appeared. Submitted written statement and denied the claim. It is stated that as per terms and conditions petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation as because the coverage was for death, permanent disablement not for any injury. The claimant petitioner produced the Policy certificate, Discharge summary, Emission test certificate, Income certificate, Leave sanction memo, Vouchers, Identity card, Driving license, Mechanical examination report Exhibited- 1 to 9. Also produced the statement of affidavit of one witness. 
4.        On the other hand, O.P. produced the Standard Form for Private Car Package Policy an also examined one witness.
5.        On the basis of evidence produced by the complainant and the O.P. we shall now determine whether the claimant petitioner is entitled to get the compensation as claimed.
        FINDINGS:-
6.        From careful scrutiny of the evidence and hearing argument it is apparently clear that the petitioner suffered accidental injury and underwent treatment. It is also admitted that petitioner was the driver cum owner and the vehicle covered insurance policy. Petitioner paid premium covering personal Accident to Owner Cum Driver amounting to Rs.2 lakhs. The policy certificate itself speaking the same. It is also admitted that the petitioner is the driver cum owner having driving license. With the valid driving license he was driving the vehicle and met with accident. His Personal Accident is covered. The main contention raised by the Opposite party is that Insurance coverage is for death, loss of limb, loss of sight, permanent disablement nor for injury. The standard form for 'Private Car Package Policy' reflected this matter. 
7.        On this point we have to rely on the decision of the  National  Madras High Court in C.M.A. No. 3006 of 2012 (National Insurance Co. Ltd.  Vrs. Krishnan) wherein it has been held that:
        ''The contention that the Insurance Company need not pay any compensation to any grievous injury or permanent disablement,  arising out of the injuries, except for Items 1 to 4, specified in the Personal Accident Cover Policy, cannot be accepted, as the contract of  insurance, viz., Personal Accident Cover Policy for the owner-cum-driver, is also a Motor Transport Policy, under IMT 15, recognised by the Motor Tariff Committee.  As stated supra, when the policies issued under the Insurance Act, are recognised by the Committee, subject to the regulations 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.  There is no negative covenant in the policy, that no compensation would be paid, in respect of other bodily injuries.   It is well settled that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation.  Reference can be made to a decision of the Apex Court in Smt.Rita Devi and others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 2000 SC 1930, wherein, in construing the provisions of the Act, the Supreme Court held that it is to advance the beneficial purpose underlying the enactment in preference to a construction, which tends to deviate the purpose.''
        It has been further held that'' such a narrow construction of the terms of the policy proposed by the Insurance company, would run to the purpose of the beneficial legislation. For the above said reasons, this court is not inclined to deny the benefit of Personal Accident Cover to the respondent/claimant, who is the owner-cum driver of the vehicle involved in the accident.''    
8.        In our considered opinion the ratio of the law laid down by the Madras High Court is applicable in the present case. So, we hold that the complainant is entitled to compensation under Personal Accident Coverage Policy though the injury sustained by the claimant does not fall within the category of death or permanent disablement. It is established fact that as a result of the accident petitioner suffered injuries. He was on medical leave for different period for treatment of his injuries. Discharge certificate produced (exhibit-1) shows that he was under treatment from 8th December, 2013 to 8th January, 2014 about 1 month. Injury was grievous in nature but it caused no permanent disablement. Medical vouchers and documents suggests that he spent an amount of Rs.6,988/- (Rupees Six thousand nine hundred eighty eight) for treatment. Medical leave is not reimbursable. So, for taking medical leave he is not entitled to get any amount. For pain and sufferings he is entitled to get Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen thousand). 
9.        Thus we considered that the petitioner is entitled to get the medical expenses of Rs.6,988/- (Rupees Six thousand nine hundred eighty eight) and compensation of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen thousand) for pain and suffering. O. P. Insurance company is under obligation to pay this amount total Rs.21,988/-. Therefore, we direct the O.P., Insurance company to pay the aforesaid amount to the petitioner within 2(two) months, if the amount is not paid within the period it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.         
        
10.                  A N N O U N C E D

 

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

 

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