In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.98/2011
1) Sri Sunil Pathak,
28A/14, Roy Bahadur Road, B-1, 1st Floor,
Nilanjana Apartment, P.S. Behala, Kolkata-53. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Howrah Division, P-4, Dobson Lane,
4th Floor, P.S. Howrah, Howrah-711101.
2) Regional Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
4, Lyons Range, Kolkata.
3) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Dabriwala House, 10, Middleton Row,
P.S. Park Street, Kolkata-71. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri ,Member
Smt. Sharmi Basu ,Member
Order No. 18 Dated 21/01/2013.
In a nutshell, the case of the complainant is that complainant has purchased a taxi by taking the financial help from the financer and he running the said vehicle by the help of a driver engaged by himself and complainant was running the vehicle exclusively for the purpose of livelihood of himself and his family members by means of self-employment since the complainant was an unemployed person before purchasing the vehicle and as such for the purpose of earning to maintain his family members and himself the complainant purchased the taxi to running the same on the road and for the purpose of smooth running of the said taxi, the complainant engaged one driver to ply the same.
Complainant had taken a comprehensive package insurance policy on payment of the premium amount to the o.ps. and after receiving the said amount o.ps. issued an insurance policy in the name of complainant for his said vehicle being no.WB04/9869 and the insurance was valid from 20.9.2000 to 19.9.01.
On 2.3.01 at about 6-00 p.m. the driver with the above mentioned taxi halted at Calcutta Medical College at Kolkata and was waiting at the main gate of the hospital to pick-up passengers for hire. At that time two people came and hired the taxi to go to Barasat Colony More and on reaching the spot the passengers wanted to go further. After travelling for some distance the passengers suddenly pointed a gun at the driver and ordered him to drive on. The next day on 3.3.01 at about 2-30 a.m. in the morning just as the car reached the high way under Nabagram P.S. Lalbag, Dist. Murshidabad, the passengers forced the driver to get out from the car and drove away to an unknown destination.
The driver did not k now the exact location where the hijackers had dropped him off. So the driver asked for direction from local people and finally reached Nabagram P.S. at about 8-00 a.m. and narrated the whole incidents to the police. The driver very naturally was shocked and was in a deranged stated of mind as the police took his statement, made him signed on paper and locked him up at the custody of police.
The driver was released from the police station after 2/3 days and after which he directly went to complainant’s house and reported the whole matter to him on 5.3.01. By this time complainant has already filed a G.D. to the Tollygunge P.S. under G.D. No.221 dt.3.3.01 for non return of the vehicle as well as the driver till 2.3.01. Thereafter on 7.3.01 complainant along with his driver went to Nabagram P.S. and discussed the matter with the Officer-in-Charge, Nabagram P.S. from where complainant came to know that a case has already been registered and invstigation was going on.
Thereafter, complainant submitted the claim form to o.p. no.1 on 12.3.01 and complainant had applied to the claim department of o.p. no.1 for realization of the claim of his stolen vehicle. The complainant had supplied all the documents necessary for the claim as asked by o.ps. and finally submitted the final police report dt.29.7.04 from Nabagram P.S. for realization of the claim, but unfortunately o.ps. did not pay heed regarding settlement of the claim of complainant though complainant on various occasions has written to o.ps. with a request to settlement of claim, but with no result at all. Complainant on 19.12.05 finally sent a lweyr’s notice to o.ps. and in answer to which o.ps. replied that the claim had been repudiated. Hence the case was filed by complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complain ant purchased a taxi taking financial help from financer and was running the said taxi with the help of a driver engaged by him for the purpose of his livelihood of himself and the members of his family and the said vehicle no.WB04/9869 was insured from 20.9.2000 to 19.9.01 and on 2.3.01 at 6-00 p.m. was waiting at Calcutta Medical College at Kolkata and some passengers hired the taxi those two people took the vehicle to Barasat Colony More and pointing at gun asked the driver to get down from the vehicle and drove away the vehicle to unknown destination on 3.3.01 at 2-30 a.m. under P.S. Nabagram, Lalbag, Dist. Murshidabad and GD was lodged at Tollygunge P.S. bearing no.221 dt.3.3.01 and on being reported by the driver. Further we find that complainant submitted the claim on 12.3.01 and the same was repudiated by o.ps. consequences two letter dt.19.12.05 by complainant. The point raised by ld. lawyer of o.ps. is that complainant was using the vehicle for commercial purpose. In this regard we would like to state that hiring of insurance service cannot made as commercial purpose and this proposition of law has been envisaged by Hon’ble National Commission in 2005 (1) C.P. Act at page 1 and we also rely upon the case law publish ed in 2005 CTJ 141 (CP) (NCDRC) page 141 and we are of the opinion on perusal of the record and relying upon the aforesaid judgment that the repudiation is not justified and this action on the part of o.ps. amounts to deficiency in service being service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief whereas the vehicle in question was stolen away vide FRT submitted by S.I. S.N. Roy of Nabragram P.S., Dist. Murshidabad dt.29.7.07 having FRT No.135 of 2004 u/s 379 IPC.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,32,000/- (Rupees three lakhs thirty two thousand) only being the assured amount to the complainant and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Complainant is at liberty to file execution case before this Forum in case of non execution of the aforesaid order in its entirety within the stipulated period under the provision of the COPRA, 1986.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
