BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM
(DISTRICT FORUM)
NORTH TRIPURA DISTRICT : KAILASHAHAR
C A S E NO. C. C. 04/19
1. SRI NARUTTAM DEB
Son of Manoj Deb
Vill :- Rajnagar, P.O.- Fatikroy
P. S. & Sub-Divn.- Kumarghat
Unakoti District.
…......COMPLAINANT
V E R S U S
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER (NORTH-EAST)
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Guwahati, Assam, Anil Plaza
5th Floor, ABC, Guwahati-781005
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Agartala, West Tripura
….....OPPOSITE PARTIES
P R E S E N T
SHRI J. M. MURASING
PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH TRIPURA DISTRICT::KAILASHAHAR
A N D
SMTI. S. DEB, MEMBER
&
SRI P. SINHA, MEMBER
C O U N S E L
For the Complainant : Shri C. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
For the opposite parties : Sri A. Chakraborty, Advocate.
ORIGINAL DATE OF INSTITUTION : 13/02/2019
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON : 22/01/2020
J U D G M E N T
This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act filed by the complainant Sri Naruttam Deb against the opposite parties claiming compensation along with interest for not settling the claim of insurance against the vehicle of the complainant.
2. The case of the complainant, as manifested from the complaint petition, is that the complainant has owned a vehicle bearing Registration No. TR-02-F-7004(Yamaha FZS), which was insured with the Opposite Party No.2 vide policy No.613921823120000807 dated 17/01/2018 and valid up to 16-01-2019. It is further contended in the complaint petition that on 22-02-2018 at about 2000 hours while the complainant was proceeding towards Fatikroy from Kumarghat side through Nidevi he met with an accident when the bike dashed the electric pole due to sudden brake failure. After the accident information was given to Kumarghat Police Station by way of G.D. Entry bearing No. 23 dated 22-02-2018. Because of the said accident the vehicle of the complainant was severely damaged and its front head light, front fork Assemble, leg guard, cast wheel, from muffler, rear seat and grabrails front Mudguard etc. were badly damaged. Accordingly, the complainant informed the accident to the opposite party and also the Indusind Bank, Dharmanagar, Branch, the financier of the Vehicle and as per instruction of the opposite party the complainant repaired the vehicle on incurring Rs.39,936/- and submitted all the relevant papers to the authorized agent of the opposite party. On 25-07-2018 the authority of Indusind Bank, Dharmanagar wrote a letter to the opposite party Mo. 2 regarding the claim of the complainant. On 31-05-2018 the complainant received a letter from the opposite party No.2 whereby he was informed that his claim was closed without any reason. Thereafter the complainant wrote a letter to the opposite party on 20-06-2018, but no action regarding claim of the complainant was taken by the opposite party. Ultimately on 05-09-2018 the complainant through his engaged Advocate Mr. Pradip Rn. Dey issued an Advocate's Notice upon the opposite parties placing his claim, but no action too. It is asserted by the complainant that the opposite parties with ill motive remained silent and did not make payment of the sum assured till today and thereby the opposite parties are deficient in service towards the complainant for which the complainant has approached this Forum claiming compensation of Rs.39,938/- with a further compensation towards pain, harassment and suffering etc. along with interest.
3. On receipt of the notice, opposite parties appeared before this Forum through learned Advocate Mr. A. Chakraborty and contested the claim by submitting joint written statement stating, inter alia, that the complainant is not at all a consumer and that the complainant had no vehicle bearing No.TR-02-F-7004 and that they are not the insurer of the vehicle and the policy document which is said to be issued against the vehicle of the complainant is also not admitted by the opposite parities. The occurrence of accident by the vehicle of the complainant on 22-02-2018 at Nidevi in between Kumarghat and Fatikroy and damage of the vehicle and lodging of information with the Kumarghat Police Station following the accident and damage of the vehicle of the complainant because of the accident on 22-02-2018 – all are denied by the opposite parties and rather it is stated that the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the complainant and at the time of accident the complainant did not have any valid driving license for which the complainant is not entitled to claim any amount from the opposite party No.2, insurer of the vehicle. It is further denied by the opposite parities that the complainant submitted all the relevant papers to the authorized agent of the opposite parties and that the Indusind Bank, Dharmanagar Branch did not write any letter to the O.P. No.2 on 25-07-2018 regarding the settlement of the claim of the complainant and that on 31-05-2018 the complainant did not receive letter from the O.P. No.2 stating that his claim was closed without any reason. It is further denied by the opposite parties that the complainant did not write any letter to the opposite parties on 20-06-2018 as they did not get any such letter said to be written to them by the complainant on 20-06-2018, even the opposite parties also denied to have received any Advocate's notice stated to be issued by the engaged lawyer of the complainant on 05-09-2018. In fact, the complainant was instructed by the opposite parties to submit all relevant documents concerning his claim to arrive at a settlement with the complainant, but the complainant never submitted any such documents nor turned up before the opposite parties and as a result, the opposite parities had to close the claim file of the complainant after affording reasonable opportunities to the complainant. As such, there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in settlement of the claim of the complainant and therefore the opposite parities may not be held responsible in any way towards non-payment of the amount incurred by the complainant for repair of his damaged vehicle and the claim of the complainant be dismissed accordingly.
4. In order to substantiate the claim, complainant examined himself as PW 1. In his deposition he stated the facts as was put down in his complaint petition. During his re-examination he has exhibited the following documents :-
1. Original Police Report in one sheet - Exbt. 1
2. Copy of MVI in one sheet) – Exbt. 2.
3. Original screen report issued by Transport Department in one sheet – Ext. 3
4. Copy of Advocate's Notice in two sheets- Exbt 4/1 to 4/2.
5. Copy of letter issued by the IndusInd Bank in one sheet - Exbt 5.
6. Copy of prayer issued by the complainant in one sheet - Exbt. 6.
7. Letter issued by the O.P. in one sheet - Exbt. 7.
8. Copy of invoice in one sheet – Exbt. 8
9. Estimate for repairing of the vehicle in four sheets - Exbt. 9/1 to 9/4.
Complainant has been cross examined by the opposite parties. During cross examination complainant admitted that on 09-04-2018 he took his vehicle to Sneha Motors, Kumarghat for the purpose of repairing. On 29-05-2018 he admitted that his vehicle was inspected by MVI. The Complainant further admitted that he did not have any signature in the estimate submitted by Sneha Motors, Kumarghat. He denied the suggestion of the opposite parties that he did not incur an amount of Rs.39,936/- for repairing of his vehicle. He also admitted that he did not procure any receipt showing payment of amount to Sneha Motors, Kumarghat for repairing of his vehicle. He also admitted that he cannot say at what time G.D. Entry was made. The Complainant also admitted that on 22-02-2018, i.e., on the date of accident the driver of his vehicle was not having any driving licence and also admitted that he did not cite his brother-in-law who drove the vehicle on the date of accident as witness in the case and that he has not submitted the driving license of his brother-in-law and that he does not know whether his vehicle was having third party insurance on the date of accident. The complainant during cross examination also admitted that he did not make Pralay Debnath as party to the complaint and that he did not file any criminal case against said Pralay Debnath who allegedly cheated him.
5. The only point for adjudication the case at hand is whether the complainant is entitled to repairing cost of the vehicle and other compensation on pain and sufferings from the opposite parties?
6. Heard argument. Learned Counsel Mr. C. Bhattacharjee appearing on behalf of the complainant submitted that the vehicle of the complainant confronted accident and in consequence of the said accident his vehicle was badly damaged and he got his vehicle repaired incurring a cost of Rs.39,936/- only on the instruction of the opposite parties and as such, the complainant is entitled to the repairing cost, but as the opposite parties did not pay the repairing cost of the vehicle to the complainant and for which the complainant had to approach the opposite parties in writing and physically, he is also entitled to compensation for sustaining pain and sufferings for the deficient service on the part of the opposite parties.
Per contra, ld. Counsel Mr. A. Chakraborty appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submitted that the complainant did not inform the opposite parties after the accident and without instruction of the opposite parties at his own whim the complainant repaired his vehicle and he also did not procure any money receipt towards payment of the repairing cost of the vehicle to the repairer. More over, on the date of accident and consequent damage of the vehicle the driver who drove the vehicle did not have any driving licence and as such, the opposite parties are not at all liable to pay compensation to the complainant and as such the complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal.
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION
7. From record it is found that the vehicle of the complainant bearing registration No. TR-02-F-7004 (YAMAHA FZS) was reportedly damaged on 22-02-2018 when the vehicle while proceeding towards Fatikroy from the side of Kumarghat dashed with an electric pole at 2000 hours due to sudden brake failure. From Exbt. 1, certificate issued by O.C., Kumarghat P.S., it transpires that on 22-02-2018 at about 2000 hours bike of the complainant was damaged following an accident occurred at Nidevi at about 2000 hours when the vehicle dashed with electric pole due to sudden brake failure. From Exbt. 9/1 to 9/4, estimate submitted by Sneha Motors, Kumarghat it is found that an amount of Rs.39.936/- has been estimated by the said repairing center for repair of the damaged vehicle of the complainant. But on close perusal of the estimate it is found that in the 'customer signature' the complainant has not put his signature. This aspect creates a doubt in the mind of this Forum as to the genuineness of the estimate. The complainant has not submitted any money receipt showing payment of Rs.39,936/- to the Sneha Motors as repairing charge of the vehicle. Mere procurement of estimate does not prove that a person has actually made payment of the amount so estimated. Here another doubt peeps up to suspect the veracity of the case. It is stated in the complaint and also in the examination-in-chief on affidavit by the complainant that because of brake failure his vehicle hit one electric post and thus accident occurred and consequently his vehicle got damaged. Brake failure means mechanical disorder, but from Exbt.2, Mechanical Inspection Report in respect of vehicle bearing Registration No. TR-02-F-7004 submitted by S. Chowhan, Motor Vehicle Inspector, O/o the DTO, Kailashahar, it is tangible in the 'conclusion' column of the said report as follows :-
“Considering the general conditions of the vehicle I opined that the accident took place due to no mechanical disorder of the vehicle No. TR-02-F-7004”
Therefore, taking into account the Mechanical Inspection Report submitted by the MVI the assertion of the complainant that the accident took place because of brake failure of the vehicle bearing No. TR-02-F-7004 is not found to be genuine, which, in fact, goes to prove that the driver of the vehicle because of his unskilled driving met with the accident and as per terms and conditions of the Insurance Company when an accident occurs on account of wrong driving, particularly because of rash and negligent driving by any driver, not because of mechanical disorder of the vehicle, in that case Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation or pay any amount claimed to have been expended by the insured. During cross examination, the complainant clearly admitted that on the date of accident the driver of his vehicle was not having any driving licence. Motor Vehicle Act does not permit any person to drive any kind of vehicle without driving licence and it is an offence and in that case the Insurance Company is no way liable to pay any compensation in case of occurrence of accident or damage of the vehicle even if the vehicle is insured. Liability of the Insurance Company can only be fixed up when one fulfills the terms and conditions of the policy, but in the case at hand all these aforesaid aspects only suggest the fault of the complainant and as such, it can be easily viewed by this Forum that the complainant has failed to prove his case and as such, he is not entitled to the repairing cost of his vehicle and any compensation from the side of the opposite parties. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.
The point is accordingly decided.
ORDER
8. In the result, the complaint filed by the complainant stands dismissed. The complainant is not entitled to Rs.39,936/- as claimed by him towards repairing cost of the vehicle or any compensation on any other count.
9. Furnish copy of this judgment to the complainant and opposite parties free of cost through their learned counsels.
ANNOUNCED
(J. M. MURASING)
PRESIDENT
(P. SINHA) (S. DEB)
MEMBER MEMBER
