DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE NO:  CC – 127  of   2017

 

 

Sri Sovan Mahajan,

S/O- Sri Parimal Mahajan,

Ramnagar, Akhaura Road,

Agartala, West Tripura- 799002. ...…...Complainant.

 

 

         -VERSUS-

 

1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

Head Office New India Assurance Building,

87 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai- 400 001.

 

2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

Agartala Branch, Hariganga Basak Road,

Agartala, West Tripura- 799001. ........... Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

__________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.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C o u n s e l

 

For the Complainant : Sri Koushik Datta,

  Sri Subhajit Paul,

  Smt. Bubli Sur,

  Advocates.

 

For the O.P. No. : Sri Bikram Paul,

  Smt. Sujata Deb(Gupta),

  Advocates.

 

 

JUDGMENT   DELIVERED   ON:  26.06.2018.

 

J U D G M E N T

This case arises on the petition filed by Sovan Mahajan U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Petitioner's case in short is that he purchased one Insurance policy for its two wheeler motor cycle on payment of premium Rs.886/-. On 27.06.2017 paid additional premium Rs.178/- coverage of pillion rider. After receipt of the amount online policy was not generated. Complainant sent Email. But policy was not generated and the amount was refunded. Petitioner was harassed and claimed compensation Rs.50,000/-.

 

2. O.P. Insurance Company appeared, filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that due to GST implementation premium increased and online payment was not  accepted through system.  Petitioner did not opt for additional premium for coverage of pillion rider at the time of purchasing policy. He purchased personal accident policy. So, the coverage of pillion rider was not given. O.P. never given any add for additional insurance coverage for pillion rider. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service and the claim is liable to be rejected.

 

3. On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination;

(I) Whether the additional insurance for the pillion rider is available in the web site of the insurance company?

(II) Whether petitioner is entitled to get compensation for deficiency of service of O.P.?

 

4. Petitioner produced the Insurance Policy certificate, print out website of the O.P, E-mails, copy of Bank Pass Book, of the complainant's account. Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of one witness that is the petitioner himself.

 

5. O.P. on the other hand produced the statement on affidavit of one witness, Asit Roy Choudhury. 

6. On the basis of all these evidence we shall now determine the above points.

  Findings & Decisions:

7. Petitioner applied for additional insurance coverage for pillion rider and paid Rs.178/-. We have gone through the website picture given by the complainant. It shows the payment of premium of Rs.178/- for the above application. But no advertisement was given to support that such pillion rider coverage was available on payment of Rs.178/-. Petitioner could not produce single piece of evidence to support that insurance company had given any advertisement to show that additional charge for pillion rider coverage is available on payment of Rs.178/-.

 

8. O.P. did not admit it and the insurance policy certificate covers personal accident also do not support such fact. We have gone through the insurance policy certificate. TP premium was Rs.886/-. Compulsory PA cover for owner driver not given. Capacity was one. The policy itself do not cover the pillion rider. It can not be said that on payment of extra Rs.178/- such facility was available.

 

9. O.P.W. stated that due to application of GST the premium rate also increased. He also did not say about the rate of premium. However, he admitted technical fault may be caused due to lack of information about implementation of GST. 

 

10. Here in this case, we can not find any deficiency of service by insurance company. Rs.178/- was paid online by the petitioner. But as such pillion rider coverage was not available on payment of Rs.178/- so the amount was refunded. This is not fault of the O.P. at all. As there is no deficiency of service by O.P. petitioner is not entitle to get any compensation. Case of the petitioner failed. Parties are to bear their own cost.  

 

 

    Announced.

 

 

 

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 SRI  U. DAS

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA