West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/6/2012

Satyanarayan Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Officer-in-charge, Universal Sompo general Insurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

19 Oct 2012

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.06/2012                                                         Date of disposal: 19/10/2012                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. K. S. Samajder.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

 

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. S. Pal. Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                          : Mr. P.  Ghosh. Advocate.

1. Satyanarayan Pal, Son of Late Upendranath Pal
2.  Dibakar Pal, son of Satya Narayan Pal, both are residents of P.O. & Vill.-Kontai, P.S. Anandapur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. The Officer-in-charge, Universal Sompo general Insurance Co. Ltd., Midnapore office, C/o. Allahabad Bank Zonal Office, Midnapore, Keranitola, P.O. Midnapore, P.S. Midnapore, Dist. Paschim Midnapore
2. The Branch Manager, Universal Sompo general Insurance Co. Ltd., Block-A, Express Tower, 7^th floor, 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017
3. The Managing Director, Universal Sompo general Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered Office, A Wing, 201-208 Crystal Plaza, Link Road, Andhaeri (West), Mumbai-4000058
4. The Manager, Allahabad Bank, Teghori Branch, P.O. & Vill-Teghori, Dist-Paschim Medinipur. ………………Ops.

         The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:-

         The complainant in this case claimed Rs.43,890/- (Forty three thousand, eight hundred ninety) towards cost of repair of the tractor  and also compensation and litigation cost of Rs.6,000/- (Six thousand) and Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) respectively from the Op Nos.1 to 3.

As per the case as made out in the petition of complaint, the complainants are farmers and purchased a tractor with the financial assistance of the Op No.4 for the purpose of tilling of lands.  The tractor was insured with the Op No.2 through the Op No.1.  The tractor met

Contd………………P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

with an accident while moving towards a petrol pump on 16/3/2011 at about 1 p.m. for re-fuelling purpose.  The tractor overturned by falling in a big ditch of the road and was damaged badly.  The incident was informed to the Salboni P.S. and a case being Salboni P.S. case No.4 of 2011 dated 16/03/2011 was started.  The complainant also informed the insurance company through the Op No.4.  The complainant also made arrangement for examination of the tractor after the accident by an Automobile Engineer who opined that the accident occurred due to reason other than mechanical failure.  The tractor was got repaired by M/S Kusum Sales Corporation at a cost of Rs.43,890/- (Forty three thousand, eight hundred ninety). Thereafter, the complainants submitted the claim but the Op Nos.1 to 4 repudiated the claim on the ground that the tractor did not have any valid road permit.

         Hence this case,

                     The Op Nos.1 to 3 contested the case by filing a W/O wherein they admitted that the tractor in question was insured with them.  They specifically contended that the accident was not informed to the Ops and the complainants got the tractor repaired without the knowledge of the Ops.  The Op Nos.1 to 3 further contended that there was no valid route/road permit of the tractor authorizing the complainants to ply the same on the road and as such the claim of the complainants was rightly repudiated by them.  So, the Op Nos.1 to 3 denied the allegation of the complainants regarding deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the case.  It is now for our consideration as to whether the complainants are entitled to get the relief as claimed.

Decisions with reasons:

      This is an admitted position that the tractor bearing No.WB-33B-0228 was purchased by the complainants with the financial assistance of the Op No.4, that the tractor was insured with the Op Nos.1 and 3 and that, on the date of accident the tractor was under the coverage of insurance with the Op Nos.1 and 3.  The accident also does not appear to be disputed.  What is disputed is the question of having valid road/route permit of the tractor.  The Op No.1 to 3 contended that the tractor did not have any valid route permit to ply on the road which was against the terms of the insurance policy.  In this regard, it has been contended and argued on behalf of the complainant that the tractor in question which was running without trailer was not required to have any route permit.  In this regard, the complainants have filed the written information submitted by the Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Paschim Medinipur to the complainant on 12/6/12 vide memo No.1377/MV dated 12/6/12.  The said information was furnished by the Secretary RTA, Paschim Medinipur with reference to the application submitted by the complainants of this case on 21/5/12 to the Secretary RTA, Paschim Medinipur under the Right to Information act.  In this case, it appears that the tractor in question was registered with the

Contd………………P/3

- ( 3 ) -

Regional Transport Authority, Paschim Medinipur.  As stated above, the Secretary, RTA, Paschim Medinipur on 12/6/12 clearly informed the complainants in writing that in terms of Rule 66 of the MV Act 1988 no permit is required in respect of tractor without trailer.  In this case, there is not dispute that on the date and time of accident no trailer was fixed with the tractor.  The accident and damage to the tractor due to the accident also appears to be undisputed.  The sole dispute in this case is requirement of road/route permit because only that objection was taken by the Op Nos.1 to 3 in their W/O but that objection  does not lie in view of the information of the Secretary RTA, Paschim Medinipur as mentioned above.  So, the repudiation of the claim of the complainants on the ground of not having any road/route permit is not at all sustainable.

         In this case, the complainant contended that they got the tractor repaired by M/S Kusum Sales Corporation at a cost of Rs.43, 890/- (Forty three thousand, eight hundred ninety).  The complainants have filed the bill/invoice issued by M/S Kusum Sales Corporation showing details of repair work done.  We are of the view that since the accident is not disputed and the Op Nos.1 to 3 have not raise any dispute relating to the repair to the tractor, the complainants are entitled to get that amount from the Op Nos.1 to 3.  We are further of the view that as their was deficiency in service on the part of the Op Nos.1 to 3 and the repudiation of the claim was without any valid reason, the complainants are entitled to compensation and litigation cost also.

      Thus, the case should succeed.

      Hence, it is

                        ordered

                                     that the case bearing number succeeds on contest against the Op Nos.1 to 3.  The Op Nos.1 to 3 are hereby directed to pay Rs.43, 890/- (Forty three thousand, eight hundred ninety) to the complainants towards cost of repair of the tractor bearing No.WB-33B-0228.  The Op Nos.1 to 3 are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) to the complainants for the harassment and mental agony caused to them and Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand) towards litigation cost.  All such amounts are to be paid b y the Op Nos.1 to 3 to the complainant within 45 days from this date in default, the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this case till realization of the entire amount.  Parties be supplied with copies of the judgement free of cost. 

Dic. & Corrected by me

                                                                               

              

         President                                Member             Member                      President

                                                                                                                 District Forum

                                                                                                              Paschim Medinipur.