Tripura

West Tripura

CC/42/2015

Shri Biswajit Paul. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Senior Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.S.Bhattacharya, Mr. S.M.Chakraborty, Mr.A.Das

26 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC-   42   of   2015

Sri Biswajit Paul,
S/O- Lt. Abhoy Chandra Paul,
Churaibari, 
North Tripura.           ..........Complainant.

             ___VERSUS___

The Senior Divisional Manager,
New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Mantribari Road, P.O.- Agartala,
P.S. West Agartala,
District- West Tripura.    .........Opposite party.
    

      __________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.

C O U N S E L

For the complainant        : Sri S. M. Chakraborty,
                      Sri Suman Bhattacharya,
                      Advocates.

For the O.Ps                : Sri Gitangshu Sekhar Das,
                      Sri Kushal Deb,
                      Advocates.                                                   
        
JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  26.04.2016

J U D G M E N T
        This case arises on the petition filed by Biswajit Paul. It is alleged that his vehicle Alto K 10 was stolen away by the robbers when the driver was returning from Karimganj. The robbers assaulted the driver and then taken away the vehicle. Driver was hospitalized. After treatment case was filed in the police station at Karimganj u/s 329/384 IPC. But the vehicle was not recovered. The maruti vehicle was covered by insurance package policy. So, the owner of the vehicle claimed the amount as covered by the policy for Rs.3,31,566/-. But the amount was not paid by the insurance company. So, this case is filed for deficiency of service by O.P. Insurance Company.

2.        O.P. Insurance company appeared, filed the W.S denying the claim. It is contended that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petitioner. A false and concocted case is built up only to get illegal benefit. 

3.        On the basis of assertion denial made by the parties following points cropped up for determination.
        (I) Whether the case is maintainable?
        (II) Whether there is deficiency of service by the Insurance Company and the petitioner is entitled to get the compensation as claimed?

4.        Petitioner produced FIR, final report, letters, RL slip. Also examined 2 witnesses, P.W. 1 i.e., the claimant petitioner, Biswajit Paul and P.W.2, Habirbur Rahman, driver.

5.        O.P. on the other hand produced the FIR, G.D. Entry, Insurance Policy, affidavit of the driver, copy of intimation, forwarding letter,  office copy of the letter regarding rejection of claim. 

6.        On the basis of all the evidence we shall now determine the above points.
                FINDINGS:
7.        There is no denial that the vehicle which was alleged to have been stolen away by the robbers were covered by Insurance Policy. The policy certificate as produced by the O.P. supports this fact. We have gone through the letter given by Senior Divisional Manager. As per the letter the use of the vehicle at the material time of incident violated the condition of the policy as regards to limitation as to use and the claim was rejected. What was the limitation of the use was not disclosed in the letter by which the claim was repudiated. We have gone through the FIR and the final report by the police. From the police investigation and final report it is clear that the vehicle was stolen away but the culprits could not be detected. The robbers disclosed fictitious name to the driver. So, those persons were not identified. From the evidence of the driver P.W.2, it is clear that TR-02-F-0615 Alto K 10 vehicle was taken away from him after assaulting when he reached near bridge  No.1 of the bypass in the night time. On request he allowed the 3 robbers to board the vehicle on 19.02.12. On 21.02.12 he was seen in a senseless condition at Manipur Baskandi road of Cachar District. Thereafter he was admitted in Silchar Medical College. The treatment of the driver in the Silchar Medical College is supported by evidence of the complainant and also police investigation. There was delay in filing FIR. But that delay was due to treatment of the driver. It is true that the unknown persons were taken into the vehicle, but they were not passengers. On request they were taken inside the vehicle. It is true that the incident took place on 19.02.12. But the petitioner made claim and several letters sent on 20.03.13 and finally the claim was repudiated by insurance company on 20.03.13. Time will run from that date. The case filed in the year 2015 when the request for consideration was turned down by the insurance company. Therefore, this claim petition is filed by the complainant is not time barred. It is true that incident took place in Karimganj but National Insurance Company is running its business at Agartala. Though the petitioner's home is not in Tripura as the O.P. running the business in Agartala, so, petitioner is at liberty to file complaint in this court. Therefore, the case is definitely maintainable. 

8.        From perusal of the case record it is found that on the date of incident the vehicle was covered by the Insurance Policy certificate issued by the National India Assurance Co. Ltd. The period was from 10th February 2012 to 9th February, 2013. Within this period the incident took place on 19.02.12. In limitation of use clause it is written 'for social, domestic and pleasure purpose.' There is nothing in the evidence of the O.P. to support that vehicle was used for hiring purpose for carriage of goods organized raising pace making, screen testing. So, there was no violation of terms of contract. From the evidence it is found that the robbers assaulted the driver of the vehicle and the vehicle was extorted. The liability of the Insurance Company assessed was Rs.3,39,006/- as per policy certificate. Insurance Company is under obligation to pay the amount as during the policy period in case the vehicle was extorted.

9.    On careful consideration of the evidence we are of the views that the petitioner is entitled to get the insured amount of Rs.3,31,566/- as claimed. It is admitted that the claim of the petitioner was not entertained and the claim was repudiated without assigning just cause. It is deficiency of service. Petitioner is entitled to get Rs.20,000/- for this deficiency of service. Both the points are decided accordingly.
    
In view of our above findings this petition is allowed. We direct the Insurance company to pay the amount of Rs.3,31,566/-(Rupees three lacs thirty one thousand five hundred fifty six) to the petitioner along with 9% interest from the date of filing this application on 08.05.15 till the date of payment. We also direct the  O.P. Insurance Company to pay Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) as compensation for deficiency of service in addition to it. Case disposed of accordingly.
      
                    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.