West Bengal

Kolkata-I(North)

CC/08/239

Seikh Abdul Gani - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

28 Jun 2012

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Unit-I, Kolkata
http://confonet.nic.in
 
Complaint Case No. CC/08/239
 
1. Seikh Abdul Gani
Jainagar, Panchla, Howrah.
West Bengal
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
15, Park Street, Kolkata-700016.
West Bengal
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'ABLE MR. Sankar Nath Das PRESIDENT
  Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.

 

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.  239 / 2008.

 

1)                   Seikh Abdul Gani,

            Ranihati, P.O. Jainagar, P.S. Panchla, Howrah-711402..                           ---------- Complainant

 

---Versus---

 

1)                   The Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

            Apeejay House, Block-B (7th Flool), 15, Park Street, Kolkata-700016.       ---------- Opposite Party

 

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

                        Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member

                                        

Order No.   24    Dated 28/06/2012.

 

This is a case filed by complainant claimed for insurance claim from o.p. for the accidental death of his son viz. Sk. Akram @ Sk. Mintu.

            The specific case of the complainant is that the said deceased son of complainant had insurance with o.p. of Rs.1 lakh and the said insurance was in respect of motor insurance policy for two wheeler bearing regn. no.WB-12T/4889 and the said policy no. was 305/50516089/00/000 and was valid from 21.10.06 till 20.10.07 issued by o.p. and premium was being paid for Rs.1045/- and the insurance was valid till the date of accident and during the validity period the said son met with an accident and as a result of such accident the said son of complainant died and all the relevant papers are lying with the record and FIR was lodged with the concerned P.S. and P.M. was on record and specific case was also started under Tamluk P.S. bearing case no.238/2006 dt.2.12.06 u/s 279, 338, 304A IPC. Complainant preferred claim of Rs.1 lakh and same was repudiated by o.p. on the plea that the deceased son of complainant did not have valid license at the relevant point of time. Hence the case against the repudiation of the claim of complainant.

            O.p. had entered its appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against it and in particular stated that they held investigation and found that the son of complainant did not have license at all and the specific case of complainant is that after the accident everything was taken away by the people assemble there at the place of occurrence which is being happened in case of an accident and prayed for dismissal of the case.

 Decision with reasons:-

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is the specific case of complainant they held investigation but they did not come to a conclusion that the deceased son of complainant did not have license at the relevant point of time, but this peace of investigation paper has not been produced before this Forum. Had it been so complainant could have take steps otherwisely and o.p. did not disclose how the documents were lost. Now the point is that at the time of accident of the son of complainant the insurance policy was valid. It is not the case of o.p. that the said policy was invalid due to default in making payment of premium.

Now moot point centres around that o.p. received premium and with the receipt of premium the obligation of o.p. starts running for making payment of insured sum and o.p. cannot shirk off its responsibility for not making payment of claim to the nominee of the insured since deceased. Therefore, we hold that o.p. had sufficient deficiencies in the matter of repudiating the claim of complainant being a service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.

Hence, ordered,

That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. O.p. is directed to pay to the legal heir and successor of the insured i.e. complainant the insured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only) together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation till the date of realization  and o.p. is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.

 

 

 

        ______Sd-_______                                           _______Sd-________

             MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

 
 
[HON'ABLE MR. Sankar Nath Das]
PRESIDENT
 
[ Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.