DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 196  of  2021

 

Mrs. Sebika Banik,

W/O- Late Haripada Banik,

Resident of Bridhyanagar,

Ranirbazar, P.O. & P.S. Ranirbazar,

District- West Tripura- 799035. …..........Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Having its registered and Corporate office at-

Unit No.103, 1st Floor, Ackruti Star, MIDC,

Central Road, MIDC, Gautam Nagar,

Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093, Maharastra.

 

2. The Branch Manager,

Kolkata- 1, Branch Office,

Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Having office at Block A, Express Tower,

7th Floor, 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, 

Kolkata- 700017. ............Opposite Party.

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Bikram Paul,

  Sri Jugangsu Saha,

  Smt. Debasree Das(Kilikdar)

  Learned Advocates. 

 

For the O.P. : None Appeared.

 

   

ORDER   DELIVERED  ON:  24/02/2023.

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

Smt. Sebika Banik(here-in-after referred to as the “Complainant”) filed this complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Andheri(E), Mumbai(here-in-after referred to as the “O.P. No.1”) and the Branch Manager, Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Kolkata- 1 Branch Office(here-in-after referred to as the “O.P. No.2”) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. in rendering service towards the complainant. 

2. The fact the complainant in short is that the husband of the complainant Lt. Haripada Banik purchased one JCB 3DX2WD side shirt Excavator vehicle in the year 2013 registered with the Transport Department of Tripura bearing registration no- TR-01-W-1728, engine no. H00024811, chasis no.1820246, hypothecated with the Indian Overseas Bank, Agartala Branch, Agartala. The said vehicle was insured with the O.P. Insurance Company vide cover note no. USGIA0001383162 for one year. The husband of the complainant deceased Haripada Banik during his lifetime used to earn from the said JCB vehicle for maintaining his family being the sole earning member of the family. The policy was renewed after one year of its expiry. On 23.11.2016 the husband of the complainant died  and the complainant had to look after the business of her husband with the help of the driver and others and she appointed one driver namely Kartik Das of Khowai for the driving the said vehicle. On 09.02.2019 at about 7.30 P.M. the JCB vehicle was outlined due to sudden removal of one wheel at Jiraniya Railway station while returning from Jiraniya Station which was being driven by the driver Kartik Das. As a result, the engine and various other parts of the vehicle got damaged. 

 

3. Complainant lodged GD Entry at Jiraniya P.S. vide no. P.S. GDE No.14 dated 16.02.2019. The matter was also informed to the O.Ps and also to the Indian Overseas Bank, Agartala Branch. On 18.02.2019 Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the said vehicle and submitted his report. The complainant approached the O.P. Insurance company and claimed vide no. CL18138697, policy no. 2316/52176918/06/000. After investigation the said vehicle was taken to the workshop namely Singh Engineering Workshop for repairing at Madhab Bari, West Tripura on 22.02.2019 and they gave an estimate of Rs.10,46,871.95/- for repairing of the JCB vehicle of the complainant. On 19.03.2019 O/C of Jiraniya,  West Tripura gave one certificate in reference to the P.S. G.D. Entry no. 014 dated 16.02.2019. The O.Ps vide letter dated 26.03.2019 without any justification and proper enquiry rejected the claim of the complainant stating that the Insurance company has not be provided ''to survey to ascertain the loss'' and the driver of the insured vehicle at the material time of accident did not hold any effective driving license to operate the insured vehicle. Complainant sent letter to the O.Ps dated 17.11.2020 but the O.Ps did not reply to the same. On 12.04.2021 the complainant sent Legal Notice to the O.P. No.2  to which the O.P. replied denying the actual facts of the accident vide their letter dated 11.05.2021. As per direction of the O.Ps the complainant dismantled the vehicle and incurred a cost of Rs.75,000/-.  That the vehicle was still lying infront of the house of the complainant in damaged condition which was the only source of income of the complainant. The complainant is entitled to get the insurance claim which is claimed in time with all valid documents. Hence, the complainant filed this petition before this Commission praying for getting the claim amount of Rs.10,46,871/- estimate for repairing of the vehicle, Rs.3,30,000/- for loss of income and cost of Rs.75,000/- incurred for displacing the vehicle from the spot of accident along with compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for deficiency in service of the O.Ps,  total Rs.17,01,871.95/- with interest.

4. Summon was issued upon the O.Ps but the O.Ps failed to appear and contest the case. As such vide order dated 29.04.2022 the case has been proceeding ex-parte against the O.Ps.

5. Complainant submitted her evidence on affidavit and also evidence of two witnesses. Learned counsel of the complainant argued the case and supported the claim of the complainant.

6. On the basis of the pleading, documents and argument advanced, the following points emerge for discussion and decision. 

(i) Whether the driver of the JCB vehicle hold a valid driving license at the material time of accident?

(ii) Whether the repudiation of the claim of the complainant is justified?

(iii) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps and the complainant is entitled to get the relief as sought for?

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:-

7. For convenience all the 3 points are taken up together for discussion and decision. We have perused the driving license of the driver Kartik Das and find that driver Kartik Das had valid driving license type LDRXCV. It was valid from 29.08.2017 till 28.08.2037 covering the date of accident. Therefore, Kartik Das was qualified to drive the JCB i.e., the vehicle in question.

8. The vehicle was capsized near rail track of Jiraniya Rail Station, Agartala on 09.02.2019. O/C, Jiraniya P.S. was duly informed on 16.02.2019 by the complainant. A copy of the G.D. Entry is lying with the record. M.V. Inspector inspected the vehicle on 18.02.2019 in connection with this G.D. Entry and detected as many as 12 damages and opined that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical disorder. It means the assertion of the complainant that all on a sudden one wheel of the vehicle got removed and the vehicle was capsized proves to be correct. O/C, Jiraniya P/S on 19.03.2020 issued a certificate to the complainant certifying  the factum of such incident. The complainant has submitted this certificate which is also lying with the record. The complainant has submitted the policy of Insurance covering the date of accident.

9. The O.Ps by their willful non appearance in this case have in fact admitted the case of the complainant which is why the case has been proceeding ex-parte against the O.Ps vide order dated 29.04.2022.

10. The complainant has submitted the estimate issued by the “Singh Engineering Workshop” for a sum of Rs.10,46,871.95/-. In fact the complainant has examined Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, the Proprietor of Singh Engineering Workshop. According to Mr. Singh the complainant could not repair the vehicle due to want of money although he submitted estimate for repairing.

11. This being the position, this Consumer Commission has no other alternative but to accept the case of the complainant and this Commission find huge deficiency in rendering service by the O.Ps. However, considering the amount required for repairing the vehicle we do not  award any compensation or punitive damage in terms of clause- (d) of Section 31(1).

All the points are decided accordingly.

12. In the result, it is ordered that the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of Rs.10,46,871.95/- to the complainant within 2(two) months from today for repairing her vehicle, failing which the O.Ps shall be jointly and severally liable to pay this amount in addition to an amount of compensation of Rs.1000/- per day on expiry of 2(two) months from today. 

  The case stands disposed off. 

Supply a copy of this Final Order free of cost to the complainant and the Opposite parties.

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.