West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/35/2016

Madan Jana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Universal Sompo General Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Durgapada Pramanik

29 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and

 Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.35/2016

 

             Sri  Madan Jana, S/o Lt. Bibhuti Jana, Village Rajma, P.O. Jasorajpur, P.S. Pingla,

              District - Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721160…………..………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

             Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., U.S.G.I.  Block-A, Express Tower,

             Seventh Floor, 42-A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017....……….….Opp. Party.

                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr. Durga Pada Pramanik, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Somasis Ponda, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 29/03/2017

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant is the registered owner of vehicle no. WB-33C/4820 (Truck).  On 20/05/2015, when the said truck was coming from Sarenga by loading sand and when it reached at Jhitka Jungle at about 1 p.m., the driver of the vehicle found that one cyclist was coming in front of the vehicle and with a view to save him, the driver lost his control over the vehicle and dashed against a road side tree as a result of which the vehicle was severely damaged and the helper of the vehicle also sustained bodily injury due to such accident.  The matter was accordingly intimated to O/C, Lalgarh P.S. on 22/05/2015, on basis of which a case being no. G.R. 389/2015 was started.  After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the driver Soumitra Das.  The matter was also duly intimated to the O.P.-Insurance Company alongwith a claim form for getting insurance amount.  Complainant also submitted estimate for labour charge and a list of spare parts with prices thereof, so issued by Bhandari Automobiles (PVT) Ltd., the authorized dealer

Contd……………..P/2

 

 

( 2 )

 

of the vehicle.  Since the policy was obtained through Allahabad Bank, Dhamtore Branch, the financier of the said vehicle, so the bank was also intimated regarding such occurrence.  In spite of receiving all such papers, the O.P.-Insurance Company did not settle the claim on false plea and pretext. Finding no other alternative, the complainant served a legal notice through his Advocate Sir Durgapada Pramanik on 04/03/2016 to the O.P.-Insurance company with a request to settle the claim at an early date.  The O.P.-Insurance Company thereafter sent a letter dated 07/03/2016 to the complainant alleging that the vehicle was overloaded at the time of occurrence of the accident, as reported by the surveyor M.M. Ghosh.  It is stated that no Surveyor made any contact with the complainant regarding alleged survey work and no survey was done at all in his presence and as such the entire story is false.  Besides that, it was also alleged by the O.P.-Insurance Company that one Arun Rana was driving the vehicle having no driving license which is utterly false as it would be found from the police report and documents that one Soumitra Das was the driver of the said vehicle and his D/L was also seized by the police and police also submitted charge sheet against the said driver Soumitra Das.  It is alleged that the O.P.-Insurance Company most illegal and fraudulently repudiated the claim of the complainant on 31/11/2015  which tantamounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint, praying for an award of Rs.60,135/- towards labour charge and a sum of Rs.10,01,681/- towards spare parts and an award of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation.

                  The opposite party-Insurance Company has contested this case by filling a written  objection.

                  Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party, as made out in their w/o, that at the time of intimation regarding the occurrence before the customer care office, the complainant informed that one Arun Rana was driving the alleged vehicle at the relevant time of accident but in spite of repeated reminders the complainant did not produce the driver’s particulars, rather the complainant falsely stated that one Sumitra Das was the driver of the said vehicle.  It is also stated that although the accident took place on 20/05/2016, the said information was intimated to the P.S. on 22/05/2016 and the driving license of the driver was seized on 22/05/2016 and the complainant intentionally did not mention  the driver’s name in the claim-intimation form.  After receiving the claim of Insurance, the O.P.-Insurance Company enquired into the matter by making spot enquiry and one surveyor Ashoke Kumar Palit, who was appointed as surveyor by the O.P.-Insurance Company, assessed the loss at Rs.6,33,032.81/- but since the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, the said amount cannot be accepted.  It is further stated by the O.P.-Insurance Company that the vehicle in

Contd……………..P/3

 

 

( 3 )

 

question was overloaded at the time of occurrence as the vehicle was carrying sand weighing 9,090 K.G. instead of permitted load of 7,315 K.G.  as reported in the surveyor’s report and the remarks column of the final survey report.  It is also stated that the        O.P.-Insurance Company that the  nature of accident shows that due overloading  the alleged accident took place and for  aforesaid reasons, the O.P.-Insurance Company repudiated the claim of Insurance.  It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and O.P. therefore claims dismissal of the complaint.

             Although the parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence by way of affidavit but both the complainant and the O.P. on the date of evidence submitted that they will not adduce any evidence in this case.  Of course, they have relied upon some documents, so filed by them including an affidavit of the Surveyor of the O.P.-Insurance Company.   

                                                                 Points for decision

1)Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?

2)Has this Forum territorial jurisdiction to try this case?

3)Is the case barred by limitation?

4)Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.-Insurance Company?

5)Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?    

                   

Decision with reasons

       For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

       It is not denied and disputed that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 20/05/2015, while the said vehicle was coming from Sarenga and reached near Jhitka Jungle within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Although the petition of complaint does not disclose  the particulars of insurance policy in question in respect of the  said  vehicle but from the documents filed by the parties as well as from the w/o filed by the O.P., we find that the vehicle in question was duly insured with the O.P.-Insurance Company.  It is also not denied and disputed that the vehicle in question met with an accident and the said accident took place within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  So this Forum has ample jurisdiction to try this case as the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum. 

     Undisputedly after the accident the complainant lodged the F.I.R. on 22/05/2015 before the O/C Lalgarh P.S. and he also intimated the O.P.-Insurance Company regarding the occurrence of accident along with claim form of insurance.  It is the case of the complainant that by sending a letter dated 07/03/2016, the O.P.-Insurance Company

Contd……………..P/4

 

 

( 4 )

 

 informed the complainant that the vehicle met such accident due to overloading as reported by their surveyor Ashok Kumar Palit.  Besides that, it has been stated by the complainant that it was falsely alleged by the O.P. that one Arun Rana was driving the vehicle having no driving license.  According to the complainant, the said allegation is false as it would be evident from the police report and charge sheet that one Soumitra Das was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident and his D/L was also seized by the police and in the said case,  police also submitted charge sheet against the said driver.  It appears that on 31/11/2015, the O.P.-Insurance Company has repudiated the claim of the complainant on those two grounds. On this score, we find from the charge sheet of GR case no.389/2015 that on Soumitra Das was driving the said vehicle and his driving license was also seized by the police.  So the allegation to the O.P. that one Arun Rana was driving the vehicle at the time of occurrence and he had no driving license has no leg to stand.  Moreover, the said case of the O.P.-Insurance Company is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Regarding the allegation of overloading of the vehicle, O.P.-Insurance Company has also adduced no cogent evidence to show that at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was overloaded.  So the said two grounds of repudiation of the claim of insurance is not at all justified and therefore we are inclined to hold that the complainant is entitled to get the claim of insurance.  Complainant has prayed for an award of compensation of Rs.60,135/- towards labour charges and a sum of Rs.10,01681/- towards the cost of spare parts of the damaged vehicle.  On this score, we find that after the occurrence of accident, O.P.-Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor- cum -Loss Assessor named Ashoke Kumar Palit, who after inspection of the damaged vehicle submitted a report before the O.P.-Insurance Company.  Said report along with detailed report of loss assessment has been filed in this case none but the O.P.-Insurance Company.  From that report, we find that the said Surveyor assessed the loss of the damaged vehicle at Rs.8,67,927.50/- towards insured liability. Therefore relying on the said report of the Surveyor –cum- Loss Assessor, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to the said sum of Rs.8,67,927.50/- towards his claim of insurance from the O.P.-Insurance Company and we allow so.  Apart from that, the complainant is also entitled to get an amount of compensation of Rs.3000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1000/- from the O.P.-Insurance Company.    

       All the points are accordingly decided in favour of the complainant.

       In the result, the complaint case succeeds.

                                                  Hence, it is,

                                                     Ordered,

                                                   that the complaint case no.35/2016  is

Contd……………..P/5

 

 

( 5 )

 

allowed on contest with cost.  O.P.-Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.8,67,927.50/- to the complainant towards the claim of insurance in question within one month from this date of order. O.P.-Insurance Company is further directed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within a month from this date of order.

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

 

 

                 Dictated & corrected by me

                    

                            President                                 Member                                    President 

                                                                                                                         District Forum

                                                                                                                     Paschim Medinipur