IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/24/2019.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
20.02.19 27.02.19 17.08.23
Complainant: Faijunnessa Bibi
W/O Late Abdul Rahaman Mia,
Vill & PO- Harhari, PS-Sagardighi,
-Vs-
Opposite Party:1.The Manager,
Bajaj Allianz Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd.
3rd Floor, Block 3B- Ecospace,
Plot No. II/F/11, New Town, Rajarhat.
2. Branch Manager,
Bajaj Allianz Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd.
3/20/B, K.K. Banerjee Road, PO&PS-Berhampore, Pin-742101
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Saddam Hossain
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties : P. Banerjee
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das………………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
Sri. Nityananda Roy……………………………….Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri. Ajay Kumar Das, Presiding Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Faijunnessa Bibi (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Manager, Bajaj Allianz Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The material facts giving rise to file the complaint are that:-
The Complainant is the wife of deceased Abdur Rahaman Mia who died in a road traffic accident on 13.06.18. The said deceased Abdur Rahaman Mia was the owner-cum-driver of Auto of No. WB-57-C/9155 (Auto) which was coming from Sagardighi Rail Station towards Harhari and the said Auto when reached near Popara Abser Service on the Sagardighi main road then a lorry of No. WB-57A/8427 was coming from opposite side with high speed and negligently dashed the said Auto. As a result the said Auto have been seriously damaged and the Complainant subsequently taken the vehicle to Biswakarma Auto Centre, Ayeshbagh, Murshidabad, Prop. Biswajit Halder, for repairing the said auto and Biswajit Halder repaired the said auto at his auto centre and issue a bill of Rs. 59,437/- only and the Complainant applied for recovery of said repairing cost from the OP but OP did not pay any heed and lastly refused on 15.12.18, so having no other alternative the Complainant filed this application before your honour for proper and adequate redressal.
The Complainant being the wife of the deceased, Abdul Rahaman Mia had the only source of income from the said Auto and being damaged from the said accident the family members of the said Abdul Rahaman Mia have been suffering from financial crisis due to that accident. However, the Complainant is willing to continue his Auto as such the said Auto had taken to Biswakarma Auto Centre Ayeshbagh, Murshidabad for repairing the said Auto and the Prop. of Biswakarma Auto Centre, Mr. Biswajit Halder had repaired the same with a cost of Rs. 59,437/- only, so the Complainant have to pay the said amount to Biswakarma Auto Centre and as the Auto was properly insured with the OPs, So, the Complainants claimed the said amount from the OP on several times and requested the OP to disburse the said amount to the Complainant but the OP did not pay any heed to that effect and lastly on 15.12.18 refused to pay. Hence, the Complainant having no other alternative but to file this application before this Commission for proper redressal and relief.
OP No.1 is contesting the case by filing written version contending inter alia that the husband of the Complainant has approached the OP for insurance of his 3 wheeler auto rickshaw. The OP explained the entire terms and conditions to the deceased husband of the Complainant . After understanding the terms and conditions, the deceased husband of the Complainant obtained the commercial vehicle insurance policy bearing No. OG-18-2401-1803-00010572, subject to the terms and conditions.
That thereafter, a claim was intimated by the Complainant with respect to accident which was happened on 14th June, 2018. The Complainant had stated that when his husband was driving the vehicle on hire a truck has dashed the auto rickshaw.
That here it is essential to mention that the accident was happened on 14.06.18 but FIR was lodged on 19.06.18. So, FIR was lodged after 5 days of the accident. So there is lapses on the part of Complainant in respect of lodging of FIR.
Thereafter, Complainant had intimated a claim with the OP on 24th July, 2018 after delay of more than 41 days by submitting claim documents in support with the claim form for seeking compensation of expenses incurred by the Complainant on account of alleged damage occurred to the vehicle. That it is the duty of the insured to intimate the insurance company upon happening of any event without any further delay as per terms and condition of the policy.
That as per IRDA guidelines the alleged claim of the Complainant was duly processed by the OP i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. by way of appointment of Surveyor and Loss Assessor. That on receipt of the Surveyor report, who had minutely conducted the alleged loss caused to the Complainant and assessed the loss subject to terms and conditions of the pol,icy and submitted Final Survey Report. The OP after scrutinizing documents submitted by the insured/Complainant, conducting spot survey assessed that actual loss caused by the the accident was only Rs. 46,951/-.
That it is further submitted that after scrutinizing all the documents it was found that insured was driving commercial vehicle at the time of loss, however he doesn’t have valid DL to drive the commercial vehicle.
On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point nos.1,2 & 3
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion. Record shows that the Complainant are not coming to continue the case for long period. However, we peruse the materials on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the Complainant is a consumer to the OPs.
In the instant case both the Complainant and the OP have filed evidence on affidavit OP has stated in para 4 of their evidence that during the investigation they found that the insured was not eligible to drive LMV-3W (TRANS) as the insured had a licence of LMV-3W (NT).This fact is not challenged/controverted by the Complainant. Moreover, the Complainant has not filed the driving licence of the deceased. Such being the position, the allegation of the OP on this point cannot be disbelieved.
OP has stated in para 6 of their evidence that at the time of the accident eleven people including the driver were travelling in the auto rickshaw, however the seating capacity of the insured was only 4 including driver, so it is a clear violation of the policy terms and conditions. This fact is not challenged by the Complainant.
OP has stated in para 7 of their evidence that nearly after 41 days the claim was intimated to this insurance company, therefore there’s a delay in intimating the insurance company which is a gross negligence on the part of Complainant and also a clear violation the policy terms and conditions. The point to be noted is that this fact is denied by the Complainant but the Complainant has not stated the date of lodging complaint with the insurance company. Such being the position, we have no scope to disbelieve the OP on this point. Moreover, there is no prayer on the part of the Complainant to consider the delay.
The record further shows that the Complainant is reluctant to continue the case indicating the complaint is not at all interested in the instant case.
In view of the matters discussed above and considering the fact and circumstances and materials on record we are of the view that the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 20.02.19 and admitted on 27.02.19. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case fails.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/24/2019 be and the same is dismissed on merit against the OPsbut without any order as to costs.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
Member Member President.
