Date of Filing the complaint : 05 December, 2019.
Date of Final Order / Judgement : 10 December, 2024.
Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Dey, Hon’ble Member.
This case arises when Sri Suvendu Hazra, hereinafter called as the Complainant, filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act) against (1) the Officer-in-charge & (2) the Branch Manager, both of the National Insurance Co. Ltd. and also against (3) the Head of the Department, State Transport Authority, hereinafter collectively called as the Opposite Parties or OPs, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs arising out of non-payment of insured amount in respect of his burnt vehicle.
The material facts of the complaint petition are that the complainant purchased a 6 wheeler Traveler car on 09/07/2015 which got a registration No. being WB 11C 7259. Just after purchasing the vehicle the complainant insured his vehicle with the OP Nos.–1 & 2 vide Insurance Policy No. 153501/31/15/6300004788 on 30/06/2015 which was valid till 29/06/2016. He paid ₹33,745/- to the OP No. – 2, the branch office of the OP No. – 1, for purchasing this Policy and the sum asured was ₹14,06,000/-. Complainant stated that he had applied for All India Tourist Permit before the OP No.–3 on 08/09/2015 and was waiting to receiving the desired permit. Complainant alleged that the vehicle caught fire due to short circuit on 04/11/2015 when the vehicle was stationed at the garage. On the very next date he submitted a letter of intimation informing the fire incident before the OP No.–2 and made a General Diary at the Shibpur Police Station. In due process he submitted all relevant documents/papers before the OP No.–2 along with Claim Form claiming the insured amount. But, the complainant alleged that the OP Nos.– 1 & 2 did not pay any heed to the complainant’s legitimate claim against the Policy and ultimately on 29/11/2016 they denied to make payment of the claim amount. On 07/07/2018 the complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs through his Ld. Lawyer demanding his insurance claim which was also remained unanswered. At last the complainant filed this instant complaint petition before this Forum, now the Commission, praying:
(i) to direct the OP Nos.– 1 & 2 to make payment of the claim amount of ₹14,06,000/- together with usual bonus in terms of the Insurance Policy;
(ii) to direct the OP Nos.– 1 & 2 to pay compensation of ₹5,00,000/- for his harassment and mental agony and violation of the agreement;
(iii) to pay ₹15,000/- as litigation cost and any other relief/reliefs to which the complainant is entitled to in Law and Equity.
Complainant filed copies of (i) the Certificate of Insurance & Certificate of Insurance cum Policy Schedule issued by the OP No. 2, (ii) Delivery Challan & Sale Certificate issued by M/s. USG Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., (iii) Temporary & permanent Registration Certificates issued by Motor Vehicles Department, W B, (iv) information on the origin & cause of Fire issued by the D. F. O., Howrah, (v) letter to the Shibpur P S for GDE, (vi) First information on 05/11/2015 on fire accident to the OP No.–2, (vii) letter dated 26/11/2015 for submission of claim Form & related documents to the OP No.–2 (viii) letter dated 20/02//2017 to the Secretary, STA, requesting to issue duplicate copy of the receiving paper, (ix) 4th & Final Reminder issued by the OP No. – 2 dated 29/11/2016, (x) Advocate’s undated letter issued to the OP Nos.–1 & 2 and some other documents as annexure to the complaint petition.
Notices were served upon the OPs, after admission, to appear and contest the case by filing their written versions. The OP No.–1 and 2 appeared through their Ld. Lawyer and filed written version. OP No.–3 did not appear despite repeated opportunities were given and did not file any written version. Consequently the case proceeded ex parte against the Op No.–3. Then the complainant filed his Evidence on Affidavit. OP Nos.– 1 & 2 then filed questionnaires and subsequently the complainant filed written reply supported by affidavit. Thereafter the OP Nos.–1 & 2 failed to file their evidence though repeated opportunities were given to them. Ultimately they were restrained to file their evidence and the case proceeded to argument. Argument was heard in full from both sides and they filed their respective Brief Notes of Arguments.
We have now come to the position to deliver the Final Order in this case. We have to decide:
(a) whether the complainant is a consumer under the OP in accordance with the C. P. Act, 1986;
(b) whether the OP is deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant;
and (c) whether the complainant is entitled to get relief(s) as prayed for.
Let us take these points together in our discussion to avoid repetition.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Factual matrix emerged from the complaint and the annexed documents:
It is the admitted fact that the complainant had purchased a 6-wheeler passenger vehicle called Traveller on 09/07/2015 and he obtained temporary certificate of registration being no. WB 19TK 7319 from the concered authority. He then got permanent registration being no. WB 11C 7259. Complainant stated that that he insured his newly purchased vehicle with the OP Nos. – 1 & 2 and the Insurance Policy Number was 153501/31/15/6300004788 issued on 30/06/2015. This Policy was valid from 30/06/2015 till midnight of 29/06/2016 and the sum assured was ₹14,06,000/- for which the complainant paid ₹33,745/-. It is the averment of the complainant that thereafter he applied for All India Tourist Permit before the OP No. – 3 under office letter no. Tourist/100/2015 and Docket No. 8183 on 08/09/2015. Complainant alleged that his vehicle unfortunately caught fire on 04/11/2015 when it was stationed at the garage and, according to his claim, such fire had been caused due to short circuit. The vehicle had been completely damaged for this fire accident. On the next date he intimated this accident to the OP No. – 2 and lodged a General Diary at the Shibpur Police Station. He also submitted a written representation before the West Bengal Fire & Emergency Services, Howrah Division, on 17/11/2015. According to the statement of the complainant, he immediately after the accident applied before the OP Nos. – 1 & 2 for granting the insured amount who, despite his incessant persuasion, have not disbursed the claim amount taking the plea of non-availability of the route permit. Complainant alleged that the OP Nos.–1 & 2 has no right to disregard the claim amount under any circumstances and this act of non-disbursing the legitimate claim amounting to deficiency of service as per the Consumer Protection Act. It is his allegation that for such deficient act of the OP Nos.–1 & 2 he along with his family members are suffering mental agony for which he claimed compensation of ₹5,00,000/-.
Complainant has put all his allegations in his evidence.
Rival Submissions:
The OP Nos.–1 & 2 jointly by filing their written version categorically disputed and denied the allegations of the complainant and pleaded to dismiss the complaint by saying that the complaint is entirely misleading, it’s a baseless allegations and there is no cause of action. They also stated that the alleged dispute, if any, has arisen out of a contract and parties should strictly follow the terms and conditions of the said contract. They also claimed that the complaint petition is premature as the alleged claim had not been refused/ rejected nor the claim file had been closed and it was under the process of settlement which could not be done for want of cooperation/assistance of the complainant despite several requests. It is their averments that to settle any claim certain valid documents including the route permit in this case are required as per law as well as the terms of the policy condition, but the complainant failed to submit this vital document for which they could not make payment. It is also stated in this written version that immediately after receiving the claim application an investigator was appointed for assessment who have already submitted his report and thereafter settlement process has been initiated by these answering opposite parties. But settlement cpuld not be completed due to insurer’s/complainant’s non-cooperation.
OP Nos.–1 & 2 put 13 (thirteen) questions before the complainant and the complainant answered theses questions through affidavit.
Findings:
We have scanned and scrutinized the complaint petition and its annexed documents, the written version of the OP Nos.–1 & 2, evidence of the complainant, questions of the contesting OPs and the answers of the complainant and the B. N. As. of both the parties. It is an admitted fact the complainant paid ₹33,745/- to the OP No.–2 to avail insurance benefit and the OP No.–2 issued a Policy on 30/06/2015. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant submitted his claim in respect of the fire accident before the OP No.–2 who had initiated settlement process after receiving the claim application.
From the submitted documents it appears that the complainant has not filed the complete Policy document except the two pages – one the Certificate of Insurance cum Policy Schedule and the other is the Policy Certificate – issued by the OP No. – 2, and for this reason we are unable to draw any conclusion on what is the claim settlement process and what document/documents should be submitted for insurance claim. Complainant has not submitted the purchase Invoice in respect of the vehicle he insured. The said Policy schedule states that the Insured Declared Value of vehicle is ₹14,06,000/-. Moreover, the complainant has incorrectly stated his own address and also has given incomplete address of the OP No. – 2.
Complainant has annexed an investigation report issued by the Divisional Fire Office (DFO), West Bengal Fire & Emergecy Services, Howrah, to the Presidency Magistrate/Magistrate, Howrah, vide its Memo No. FES/How/304/15, dated 17/11/2015, stating inter alia that on 04/11/2015 fire occurred at Nabanna Bus Stand, owner of the premises is Suvendu Hazra and cause of fire could not be ascertained. In Point No.–7 on short description of damage it is stated that “One Private bus model no. Force Travel, bearing no. WB 25E 3411 which is used school purpose and another Private bus model no. Force Travel, bearing no. WB 11C 7259, which is used travelling purpose, both buses were standing on the said Bus Stand and involved in Fire, …. 2 jets used both buses badly damaged by fire, none injury reported…. “ [Emphasis supplied.] From this report of the DFO we find that the complainant is the owner of the damaged vehicle which was being used for travelling purpose and this indicates that the said vehicle must have a valid route permit. Whether it was an All India Tourist Permit or not is not clear, but the OP No.–2 requested the complainant to submit the Original Route Permit which the complainant failed to comply. Complainant has not mentioned about the three previous reminders of the OP No. – 2 , he has not annexed the copies of these reminders and stated nothing what steps he had taken against these reminders.
Now we take the plea against the OP No.–3. This case proceeded ex parte against the OP No.– 3 due to wrong address. Complainant alleged that he applied before the OP No.–3 praying to issue duplicate copy of the receiving paper in connection with Docket No. 8183, dated 08/09/2015 being Offer Letter No. TOURIST/100/2013, but the OP No. – 3 has not provided the documents as prayed for. This letter was issued by the complainant addressed to the Secretary, State Transport Authority, with address as is written in the Cause Title of the complaint petition and this letter has been received by hand at the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, 44, Ganesh Chandra Avenue. The letter he submitted on 20/02/2017 is merely seeking duplicate copy of the receiving paper, not the Rote Permit which was allegedly essential in settling the claim amount. The DFO has stated that the complainant’s damaged vehicle was used for travelling. So there must a route permit of this vehicle without which the vehicle could not ply on road.
The above discussion tells us that it is a premature case which is liable to be dismissed. But the benevolence and the essence of the Consumer Protection Act, be it 1986 or 2019, tell us that a scope should be given to the complainant by directing him to contact with the Insurer, the OP Nos. – 1 & 2, pledging for settlement of the claim. The OP No.–2, by its 4th and Final Remainder dated 29/11/2016, requested the complainant to submit the original Route Permit for speedy settlement of the claim. It was also stated in this reminder that if the complainant failed to comply with this request within seven days then it would be presumed that the complainant was not interested in settling the claim. Despite this utter determination the OP Nos.–1 & 2 stated in their written version that they are still ready to settle the claim after compliance from complainant side. Then we think we should direct the complainant to approach within fifteen days from the date of this order to the concerned authority to issue duplicate copy of the Route Permit in respect of his damaged vehicle and the concerned authority should issue the duplicate copy of Route Permit, if any, to the complainant within fifteen days from receiving the prayer of the complainant. After receiving the duplicate copy of the route permit the complainant then should approach to the OP No.–2 with remaining requisite document(s) as per the terms and conditions of the concerned Policy within fifteen days and the OP Nos. – 1 & 2 should settle the claim obeying usual norms within the next one month.
It is, therefore,
ORDERED
that the Complaint Case bearing No. CC/308/2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Opposite Party Nos. – 1 & 2 and dismissed ex parte against the Opposite Party No. – 3 and with no cost.
1. However, the complainant is directed to approach with relevant papers within fifteen days from the date of this order to the concerned State Transport Authority, West Bengal, for issuance of the Duplicate Route Permit in respect of his damaged vehicle no. WB 11C 7259. The concerned State Transport Authority is directed to issue the Duplicate Route Permit, if any, within fifteen days after receiving the application to the complainant.
2. The complainant is then directed to approach to the OP No. – 2 within fifteen days after receiving the Duplicate Route Permit for settlement of the claim.
3. The Opposite Parties Nos. – 1 & 2 are directed to settle the claim within the next 30 days after receiving all relevant papers from the complainant failing which the complainant will have the liberty to approach before the appropriate Court of Law with his grievance.
Both the parties are given liberty to get a free copy of this order.
Let a copy of this order be uploaded in the official website of this Commission: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me
Member.
