West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/162/2015

Purnendu Das. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, ICICI, Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Goutam Dey.

02 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

and 

Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.   

Complaint Case No.162/2015

             Sri  Purnandu Das, S/o Nandadulal Das of Jhapatapur, Bulbulchati, P.O. Kharagpur,

             P.S. Kharagpur (T), District - Paschim Medinipur.

                                                                                        …………..………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

1)The Manager, I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Pravadevi. Mumbai-400025,

2)The Manager, I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., At M.S. Tower, 2^nd Floor, O.T. Road, P.O. Inda, P.S. Kharagpur (T), Dist- Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721305.

                                                                             …………......……….….Opp. Parties.                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Goutam Dey, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Pinaki Sengupta, Advocate.

 

Decided on: -02/09/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant is a resident within the jurisdiction of this Forum and the opposite party-Insurance Company runs it’s insurance business all over India having it’s registered office within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  The complainant purchased a vehicle being model no.Swift-Dzire Tour DSL being registration no.WB-34AL-2037 from Bhandari Automobile Pvt. Ltd., Jhapatapur for his own purpose and he insured the said vehicle with the opposite party-Insurance Company vide policy no.3001/M-I-02169085/00/000 issued on 24/07/2014 and the said policy was valid up to 23/07/2015.  On 05/07/2015, some relatives of the complainant went to Kolkata by the said vehicle. Unfortunately the said vehicle met with an accident at about 10.30 p.m. on that day at village-Baradabas Bazar under P.S. Kolaghat.  As a result of such accident, the relatives of the complainant became

Contd………………P/2

 

 

( 2 )

 seriously injured and left leg of the complainant was also fractured and he was admitted in Colombia Hospital, Kolkata.   Due to such accident, the said vehicle was completely damaged and the complainant took the damaged car to the service centre of the Bhandari Automobiles and they issued an estimated cost of Rs.7,66,162.03/- for repairing works and took Rs,2,000/- for estimate charge and they are also disclosed parking charge will be taken @ Rs.200/- per day till completion of repairing works.  After obtaining said estimate, the complainant informed the entire  facts to the opposite party-Insurance Company through the Bhandari Automobiles Private Ltd. but the opposite parties did not pay any heed and thereafter on 01/09/2015, the opposite party-Insurance Company most illegally and without proper enquiry disallowed the claim of the complainant  with remarks Hire or reward ground.  The complainant then sent a notice to the opposite parties on 07/11/2015 through his Ld. Lawyer. In spite of receiving the said notice, the opposite parties did nothing.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the opposite parties to pay repairing cost of Rs.7,66,162.03/- and parking charge of the vehicle @ 200/- per day till repairing  of the vehicle, an award of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and an award of litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

                The opposite parties have contested this case by filling a joint written objection.                   

                Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party-Insurance Company that from the investigation report of the company it has been disclosed by the investigating agency SHAKTI SERVICE that the damaged vehicle was used for commercial purpose in spite of having authorization for plying the insured vehicle as private car and by violating the terms and conditions of insurance and registration service, the complainant used he said vehicle for hiring.  It is stated that from the F.I.R., it is found that one Partha Pratim Nath was traveling on that day in the disputed vehicle and he sustained injury and was admitted in Colombia Hospital at Kolkata for his treatment.  On visit to the house of the said Partha Pratim Nath, he disclosed that he hired the said vehicle for his journey from Naihati towards Kharagpur by giving rent/hire charge of Rs.6000/- to the complainant and in support of that he also gave a written statement duly signed by him before the investigator of SHAKTI SERVICE. After receiving the intimation of claim, the opposite party-Insurance Company deputed a surveyor named Mr. Soumen Kumar Maity who assessed the claim on repair basis and submitted a survey report containing the assessment at Rs.4,84409.89/- on repair basis only against the insured declare value of Rs.5,84,455/- but the said  assessment is not payable as the complainant violated  the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy by using the said car for commercial purpose and therefore the opposite party- Insurance Company has no

Contd………………P/3

 

 

( 3 )

 liability to pay any compensation of whatsoever amount and they rightly repudiated the claim of insurance vide their letter dated 01/09/2015.  It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company to settle the claim and as such, the petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                                                                 Points for decision

1)Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer ?

2)Is there any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties ?

3)Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as prayed for ?  

Decision with reasons

  For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

  In this case, neither the complainant nor the opposite parties adduced any evidence, either oral or documentary but they have relied upon some documents, so filed by them. 

  Admittedly, the complainant is the owner of the disputed vehicle Swift-Dzire Tour DSL  being registration no. WB-34AL-2037 and the said vehicle was duly insured with the opposite party-Insurance Company vide policy no.3001/M-I-02169085/00/000 covering the period from 24/07/2014 to 23/07/2015.  It is not denied and disputed that on 05/07/2015, the said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and the vehicle was damaged.  It is also undisputed that after the accident, the complainant submitted claim of insurance of the policy before the opposite parties.  According to the complainant in spite of submissions of such claim form after observing all formalities, the opposite party-Insurance Company most illegally repudiated his claim of insurance with remark Hire or reward. As against this,  it is the case of the opposite party-Insurance Company that after receiving the intimation of claim they made investigation about the incident of accident through their  investigating agency SHAKTI SERVICE who disclosed in his investigation report that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose by violating the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy.

It is also alleged that the investigator of SHAKTI SERVICE met one Partha Pratim Nath who was travelling by that vehicle on the date of accident and said Partha Pratim Nath disclosed before the investigator by submitting a written statement duly signed by him that he hired the said vehicle of the complainant by giving hiring charge of Rs.6,000/- for his journey from Naihati towards Kharagpur.  On the said ground, the opposite party-Insurance Company repudiated the claim of insurance of the complainant.  Now let us considered as to whether the said ground of repudiation is sustainable or not ?  Although the opposite party –Insurance Company made out such story of repudiation but they did neither examine the said investigator of SHAKTI SERVICE nor the said Partha Pratim Nath, who allegedly disclosed

Contd………………P/4

 

 

( 4 )

by submitting a written statement that he hired the said vehicle of  the complainant by paying hiring charge of Rs.6,000/-.  Although the said report of the investigator of the SHAKTI SERVICE and the alleged written statement of Partha Pratim Nath have been filed in this case but those were not proved according to law.  Therefore no reliance should be placed upon such report of investigator of SHAKTI SERVICE nor upon the alleged written statement of Partha Pratim Nath.  Therefore we are of the view that the act of repudiation of the claim of insurance of the complainant on the said ground is arbitrary, unlawful and act of unfair trade practice, thereby depriving the complainant from getting the benefit of the policy.  Therefore the complainant is entitled to an order of payment of repairing cost and other reliefs as prayed for. About the loss of such damage we find from the written objection of the opposite parties as well as from the survey report of the loss assessor Sri Soumen Kumar Maity, who was deputed by the opposite party-Insurance Company for assessing the loss of vehicle that he finally assessed the claim on repair basis at Rs.4,64,409.89/- only against insured declared value of Rs.5,84,455/-.  He happens to be the loss assessor so engaged by the opposite party-Insurance Company and lying upon his said report, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to the said amount of Rs.4,84,409.89/- towards repairing cost under the coverage of that policy and he is also entitled to get compensation, interest and  litigation cost.

All the above points are accordingly decided in favour of the complainant.

In the result, the petition of complaint succeeds in part.                                                                

                                                            Hence, it is,

Ordered,

                                                     that the complaint case no.162/2015  is allowed in part on contest against the opposite party-Insurance Company.   Opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4,84,409.89/- towards repairing cost of the vehicle together with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint.  Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.  All such payment shall be made within a month from this date of order.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

            Dictated and Corrected by me

                    Sd/-B. Pramanik.         Sd/- D. Sengupta.    Sd/- K.K.Chattopadhyay.                         Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                             President                        Member                       Member                                        President

                                                                                                                                                         District Forum

                                                                                                                                                    Paschim Medinipur