West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/42/2017

Masuda Bibi, - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lembard General Insurance Co Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Kr. Acharya

15 Dec 2017

ORDER

The case of the complainant Masuda Bibi, in brief, is that her husband Lt. Sk. Rahamatulla was the owner of Maruti Omni Van being No. WB 54N 5650 and the said vehicle was insured with the O.P Company being policy No. 3001/MI-01490379/00/000, I/W of Rs. 2,58,541/-, valid from 10.09.2013 to 09.09.2014.

It is further case of the complainant that the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 28.01.2014 and inconsequence her husband owner cum driver died and the vehicle was severally damaged. The police started a case being No. Dubrajpur P.S. Case No. 12/2014 dated 30.01.2014 U/s 279/337/338/427/304(A) and the O.P Co. was also informed over telephone about the accident.

It is further case of the complainant that one Rahima Khatun sustained injury in that accident happened on 28.01.2014 and she was admitted to hospital and due to taking steps regarding arrangement for her treatment the complainant could not brought the vehicle in question to authorized service centre in due time and some delay cropped up in this regard.

It is further case of the complainant that being the beneficiary of Sk. Rahamatulla she submitted all the relevant documents along with estimate cost of Rs. 310094.47p as the vehicle was damaged totally for settlement of the insurance claim but the O.P did not settle the claim of the complainant. The complainant could not make repair of the vehicle due to shortage of fund. She had been to the O.P and approached to them on several occasion for settling the claim but lastly on 12.08.2016 they refused to settle the claim which amounts to deficiency in service and violation of the law and guideline of IRDA.

Hence this case for directing the O.P to pay Rs. 3,10,094.47 as insurance claim for the damaged of the vehicle with interest and other reliefs.

Inspite of due service of notice O.P ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. has not turned up and the case was heard ex parte against them.

 

Point for determination.

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.?
2. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

 

DECISION WITH REASONS

During the trial the complainant Masuda Bibi has been examined as PW1 and filed some documents.

Heard arguments of Ld. Advocate/Agent of the complainant.

Point No.1:: Evidently husband of the complainant was the owner of Maruti Omni Van being No. WB 54N 5650 and the said vehicle was insured with the O.P Company being policy No. 3001/MI-01490379/00/000, I/W of Rs. 2,58,541/-.

            So, the complainant is a consumer U/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.

Point No.2:: The office of O.P has within jurisdiction of this Forum.

The total valuation of the case is Rs. 3,10,094.47p which is far less than maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum i.e. Rs. 20,00,000/-.

So, this Forum has pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try this case.

Point No. 3 and 4:: Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion as they are related to

each other.

The complainant in his complaint and evidence stated that her husband Lt. Sk. Rahamatulla was the owner of Maruti Omni Van being No. WB 54N 5650 and the said vehicle was insured with the O.P Company being policy No. 3001/MI-01490379/00/000, I/W of Rs. 2,58,541/-, valid from 10.09.2013 to 09.09.2014.

Copy of the insurance policy shows that the vehicle in question i.e. WB-54N 5650 was duly insured under the O.P Insurance Co. for the period 10.09.13 to 09.09.14 and accident happened on 28.01.14.

Copy of the Registration Certificate shows that the vehicle No WB54N 5650 was duly registered in the name of Rahamatulla Sk. husband of the complainant.

The complainant in her evidence further stated that the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 28.01.2014 and inconsequence her husband owner cum driver died and the vehicle was severally damaged. The police started a case being No. Dubrajpur P.S. Case No. 12/2014 dated 30.01.2014 U/s 279/337/338/427/304(A) and the O.P Co. was also informed over telephone about the accident.

Copy of the FIR, Post Mortem report, Seizure list , death Certificate show that due to accident vehicle in question i.e. WB54N 5650 was badly damaged and Rahamatulla Sk. had died due to said accident.

Copy of temporary receipt issued by SWG, Car World, Durgapur also shows that vehicle No. WB54N 5650 was brought there in total damage condition.

The complainant further stated that as beneficiary of Sk. Rahamatulla she submitted all the relevant documents along with estimate cost of Rs. 310094.47p as the vehicle was damaged totally for settlement of the insurance claim but the O.P did not settle the claim of the complainant. The complainant could not make repair of the vehicle due to shortage of fund. She had been to the O.P and approached to them on several occasion for settling the claim but lastly on 12.08.2016 they refused to settle the claim which amounts to deficiency in service and violation of the law and guideline of IRDA.

Estimate cost certificate dated 02.09.16 issued by Sanath Autolink Pvt. Ltd. Bolpur shows that estimate of Rs. 3,10,094.47p was given to the complainant for cost of repair of the vehicle in question stood in the name of Rahamatulla Sk.

So, it is clear from our above made discussion that the vehicle in question Maruti Van being No. WB54N 5650 met an accident on 28.01.14 and as a result of which Rahamatulla had died and one Rahima Khatun sustained injuries and the car was badly damaged. Service center issued certificate regarding cost of estimate of the said vehicle at Rs. 3,10,094.47p, but she failed to repair the same due to shortage of fund.

In her evidence on oath the complainant/PW1 Masuda Bibi stated that she has submitted claim application with relevant documents along with estimate cost.

Copy of application before O.P shows that she informed the matter of accident of their Maruti Van and submitted claim application being No. Moto 03918836.

In view of the ruling reported in IV2006CPJ 2013(NC) wherein a complaint case the complainant filed an affidavit by way of evidence but the O.Ps neither filed any evidence by way of affidavit nor cross examined the deponent. Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that allegation of the complainant remained uncontroverted and in absence of any counter affidavit case of the complainant stands prove.

So, it can be said that on the basis of unchallenged testimony of the complainant the case of the complainant have been proved.

We find that in the present case it is the claim of the complainant that she is entitled to get Rs. 3,10,094.47p. as insurance claim for the damage of their vehicle.

Estimate certificate shows that Rs. 3,10,094.47p. has been assessed by the Service Centre cost for repair of the Maruti Van. But the policy certificate shows that IDV of the vehicle in question was Rs. 2,58,541/-.

Registration certificate shows that the car was manufacture in the month of September 2013.

 

 

Accident took place on 28.01.14.

So, salvage may be treated as 10% and same is to be deducted from IDV.

Accordingly, the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 2,58541/- - Rs. 25,854/- = Rs. 2,32,687/- as damage and she is also entitled to get 8% interest on Rs. 2,32,687/- from 28.01.14 to till realization.

Thus these points are decided in favour of the complainant. The case succeeds in ex parte.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that C.F case No. 42/2017 be and the same is allowed on ex parte  against the O.P with a cost of Rs. 2000/-.

            The O.P is directed to pay Rs. 2,32,687/- to the complainant as damage and she is also entitled to get 8% interest on Rs. 2,32,687/- from 28.01.14 to till realization.  All such orders shall comply within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order as per law and procedure.

            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.