West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/160/2014

Mantu Chaulya - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.A.K.Dutta.

24 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

&

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

Complaint Case No.160/2014

                                                       

                                        Mantu Chaulya..…………………………Complainant.

Versus

 

1. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Kharagpur;

2. The Regional Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Reliance

    General Insurance Co. Ltd., Kolkata-71………..Opp. Parties.

 

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Asim Kumar  Dutta, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr.  Pinaki Sengupta, Advocate.

 

Decided on: -24/02/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President–Complaint’s Case, in brief, is as follows :-

                          Complainant purchased a Tractor being Reg. No.WB-33B/3460 for his self employment  and he got the aforesaid tractor insured with the Op. After receiving the premium covering insurance of the said tractor, the Op-Insurance Company issued policy being cover note No.111000807541 for the period from 18/10/2011 to 17/10/2012 which was issued from the office of Op. No.1 at Kharagpur. On 01/12/2011 the said tractor of the complainant met with an accident on Rajbandh Lebel crossing with a goods train as a result of which the tractor was grossly damaged. After the accident the complainant intimated the occurrence of the accident to the Op. No.1 alongwith relevant papers and after intimation of claim being no.2111201380, the Op-Insurance Company deputed a surveyor named

Contd………………P/2

 

                                                                                       ( 2 )

          Mr. Kalayan Sarkar for enquiry and spot survey for assessing the loss of damage of the vehicle. After  inspection, the complainant repaired his damaged vehicle in Anjali Automobile and he incurred an expenses near about Rs.85,517/- as repairing cost. After submitting all documents including bill and vouchers, complainant went to the office of the Op. again and again and after lapse of long time, the Op. send a letter dated 29/03/2013 to the complainant thereby informing that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated on the ground of “no liability” to the insurance company as the accident was caused for the fault of the driver. It is stated that such repudiation of the genuine claim of the complainant is illegal and improper and the Op. cannot avoid his laibility of paying insurance claim of the complainant. It is further stated that there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the Op. Hence, the complainant.

                              Op-Insurance Company has contested the case by filing a written objection.  Denying and disputing the case of the complaint, it is the specific case of the Op that after the accident, an F.I.R. was lodged u/s 161 of Railway Act against the driver. After  verification it was observed that it was an unmanned level crossing and  from a distance of about 1 K.M. it is visible  whether any train is coming or not. There was gross negligence on the part  of the driver as even after seeing the train, he tried to cross the level crossing and when he became unable to cross then he left the vehicle and fled away. On intimation of accidental damage of the vehicle by the complainant, there was a spot survey in order to assess the loss by M/S Divyang Surveyors and Valuers Pvt. Ltd. and they assessed the loss at Rs.51,031/- after deduction of depreciation value against the estimated claim amount of Rs.85,517/-. It is stated that due to violation of terms and conditions of policy, the complainant is not entitled to the claim and his claim has been repudiated on the ground of “No liability” from the side of the Op. as because the driver of the vehicle without care and protection of safety of the insured vehicle intentionally tried to cross the unmanned level crossing. Op stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and as such the claim made by the complainant is not at all tenable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

                                                      Point for decision

                              Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as prayed for ?                      

        Decision with reasons

                  In this case, neither the complainant nor the opposite parties adduced any sort of evidence either oral or documentary but they have relied upon some documents, so filed by them. 

Contd………………P/3

 

                                                                                     ( 3 )

                          Admittedly, the vehicle in question of the complainant was duly insured with the Op-Insurance Company at the relevant time of accident. It is also admitted that after being informed about such occurrence of incident and submission of claim of  Insurance by the complainant, the  Op-Insurance Company engaged surveyor M/S Divyang Surveyors and Valuers Pvt. Ltd. and after survey the loss was assessed  at Rs.51,031/- after deduction of depreciation value and salvage value of damaged parts. After such survey, the complainant got his damaged vehicle repaired in Anjali Automobile and incurred expenses of Rs.85,517/- and he claimed the said charge under the policy of  Insurance but the Op-Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide their letter dated 29/03/2013 on the ground of no liability from the side of the  Insurance Company as because the driver of the vehicle in intentionally tried to cross the unmanned level crossing.  Now the question arises as to whether the said ground of repudiation is justified or not and if there is any deficiency  in service on the part of the Op. The contract of policy in question was executed in between the complainant and the Op-Insurance Company and the driver of the vehicle  is not a party to such contract of insurance policy. Had there been any fault on the part of the driver resulting accident of the vehicle, that can not be a  good ground to repudiate the claim of the insured-complainant as he had no hand in causing such accident of the vehicle. So, the said ground of repudiation on the part of the alleged negligence and fault of the driver is not at all justified and the Op-Insurance Company is guilty of deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of policy of the complainant. The complainant is therefore entitled to get his claim of Insurance under the said policy for such accident of vehicle. About the amount of claim, we find that although the complainant has produced bills and voucher of repairing of the damaged vehicle but such amount cannot be allowed as the depreciation value of the vehicle has not been deducted. However, we find from the survey report submitted by the Op that after such survey the actual loss was assessed at Rs.51,031/- and to our view the complainant is entitled to the said amount of Rs.51,031/-, so assessed by the Op. as claim of insurance and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost.

                                  Hence, it is,

                                                     Ordered,

                                                         that the complaint case no.160/2014  is allowed in part on contest. Op-Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.51,031/- as

Contd………………P/4

                                                                   

                                                                                          ( 4 )

insurance claim of policy no.111000807541 to the complainant and to pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant within a month from  the date of order.

   Let plain copies of this order be given to the parties free of cost.     

                       Dictated & Corrected by me

             

                                   President                                 Member                              President

                                                                                                                           District Forum

                                                                                                                      Paschim Medinipur