Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant: Mukbul Rahaman
For OP/OPs : Rajkumar Mondal
Date of filing of the case :06.07.2020
Date of Disposal of the case :21.03.2024
Final Order / Judgment dtd.21.03.2024
The basic fact of the case of the complainant is that the husband of the complainant Santana Bhowmick purchased one vehicle bearing no. WB 52Q 4409 and also insured the said vehicle with the OP Manager the National Insurance Company vide policy no. 156038311810001869, from 17.11.2018 to 16.11.2019 at a premium of Rs. 1,880/- with PA cover for owner driver of Rs.15,00,000/- . The policy holder Sanjoy Bhowmick while riding the said Motorcycle met with an accident on 20.01.2019 and died on the spot.
One Chakdaha P.S U/D case no. 13/19 dtd. 21.01.2019 was started and PM held. Policy was in running condition. After the death of her husband the complainant informed the matter to the NIC Chakdaha Business Centre. But despite receiving information the OP did not take any steps. So
the complainant sent a letter to the OP but the OP did not respond. So the complainant sent a legal notice on 21.02.2020 along with some documents.
Therefore, the present case is filed. The cause of action arose on and from 21.02.2020 till filing of this case.
Complainant prayed for awarded for Rs. 15, 00,000/- which is PA cover for owner driver together with interest @ 12 % per annum, Rs.4, 00,000/- towards loss and damages, harassment and mental agony and litigation cost.
OP contested the case denying all the major allegation .
OP challenged the case as not maintainable on the ground that it is barred by special law limitation and bad for defect of the parties. The Positive defence case of the OP in brief is that the complainant filed the case for compensation for an accidental death of Sanjoy Bhowmick on the strength of P.A. Policy which was issued by OP no. 1 subject to the terms and condition. After receiving the claim the OP asked the complainant to produce the valid and proper driving licence of the deceased and certified copy of charge sheet, final report of criminal case but the complainant failed to produce those documents. The driving license bearing no. WB26080190 is not valid as per the data base Of RTO Barasat. The final police report is also not submitted despite repeated reminder. So, the OP had no other alternative but to repudiate the claim of the complainant for insufficient document. As per provision of settlement of accidental death claim, police final report of specific police case is mandatory. OP company informed the complainant regarding the repudiation of the claim of the complainant.
The OP claimed that the case is liable to be dismissed.
The conflicting pleading of the party demand for ascertainment of the following points for adjudication of this case.
Points for Determination
Point No.1.
Whether the present case is maintainable in its present form and prayer.
Point No.2.
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief prayed for.
Point No.3.
To what other relief if any the complainant is entitled to get.
Decision with Reasons
Point No.1.
The OP challenged the case as not maintainable and barred by special law of limitation.
Although the complainant raised different points regarding the maintainability of the case yet Ld. defence counsel in course of argument did not press those points. However, after perusing pleading of the parties and the material on the case record the Commission finds that the cause of action arose on 21.02.2020 but the present case is filed on 06.07.2020, so it cannot be said that the case is barred by limitation.
Both the parties reside within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. The amount relief claimed also falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.
Accordingly, Point No. 1 is decided in favour of the complainant.
Point No.2 and 3
Both the points have close link, so these are taken up together for brevity and convenience of discussion.
The crux of the case is that the complainant purchased the disputed insurance policy during validity of the said policy. The complainant died following an accident on 20.01.2019. Subsequently, UD case was started at Chakdaha P.S on 21.01.2019. After the death of the insured Sanjoy Bhowmick, her widow Santana Bhowmick, the complainant informed the matter to the OP and submitted all documents but the OP did not take any positive steps. So the present case is filed.
The complainant in order to substantiate the case proved the following documents in addition to her oral evidence in the form of affidavit-in-chief.
Complainant proved the following documents through evidence.
Annexure : 1 is the certificate of registration of vehicle NO. WB 52Q 4409.
Annexure: 2 is the insurance Policy bearing no. 156038311810001869.
Annexure: 3 is the final report of the police case.
Annexure: 5 is the cremation certificate of deceased Sanjoy Bhowmick.
Annexure: 6 is the driving licence.
Annexure: 7 is the Ghat Challan of dead body of the Sanjoy Bhowmick.
Annexure: 8 is the application of the complainant to the OP dtd. 01.02.2019.
Annexure: 9 is the application of the complainant to the OP dtd. 16.04.2019.
Annexure: 10 is the application dtd. 13.09.2019 to the OP by the complainant.
Annexure: 11 is the letter of advocate dtd. 21.02.2019 to the OP.
The complainant claimed that despite submitting all the documents the OP did not respond to the same and repudiated the claim without sufficient grounds.
OP claimed that they asked the complainant to produce valid and proper driving licence and certified copy of charge sheet / final report of criminal case. The DL which was submitted is not valid as per date base of RTO, Barasat. The complainant also did not submit the final report. Therefore, they repudiated the claim.
After, perusing the case record specially the documentary evidence it transpires that the complainant by their letter dtd. 01.02.2019 informed the OP about the said accident in the said letter.
It is further evident that the complainant again sent another letter for getting compensation of on 16.04.2019 as per Annexure :9. Thereafter, the complainant again sent another letter to the OP raising his claim for compensation on 13.09.2019.
In all the aforesaid 3 cases OP did not reply to the said letters. There is nothing within the case record to show that the OP gave any reply against the said letters.
Finally, Ld. Adv. for the complainant issued a letter on 21.02.2020 claiming the compensation money.
It is evident from the documents proved by the complainant that the husband of the complainant Sanjoy Bhowmick had a valid licence bearing no. WB 26080190 valid up to 19.08.2019.
Date of issue of the said driving licence is 20.08.2004, date of accident is 20.01.2019. It means that at the time of the accident the husband of the complainant had valid driving licence.
It is admitted fact that the deceased was duly insured with the OP. So taking into consideration the specific pleading of the complainant duly proved by the document, the Commission is of the view that the complainant has fulfilled all the requirement for getting the compensation against the insurance policy due to the death of her husband .
Ld. Senior defence counsel argued that the complainant did not file the required documents. If She filed the same during the trial of this case then the case has to be re opened by the OP and the case has to be checked and entire files should be re-opened.
The argument is not acceptable in as much as the OP seems to have never replied to the complainant that the claim could not be entertained due to insufficient documents. It further appears that the complainant categorically answered against the interrogatories of the OP. he Sanjoy Bhowmick had valid and proper and authentic driving licence.
There is nothing in the case record that the repudiation letter was served upon the complainant. The Complainant categorically answered in reply to question no. 4 that repudiation letter dtd. 15.10.2020 was not served upon him.
Complainant also put some questions in cross examination to the OP.
The OP was specifically asked as to whether they submitted any document regarding the repudiation of the said claim.
The OP answered “no” but today i.e 13.03.2024 they are filing repudiation letter. It means that the OP did not serve repudiation letter to the complainant but the said claim was repudiated without any knowledge of the complainant.
Curiously enough the said repudiation letter was claimed to have been filed at the fag end of the case on the last date of argument.
So the OP has acted in a manner which tantamount to deficiency in service.
In the back drop of the aforesaid discussion in the foregoing paragraph and the observation made therein, The Commission comes to the finding that the complainant successfully proved the case up to the hilt.
Accordingly, Point no. 2 and 3 are answered in affirmative and decided in favour of the complainant.
Consequently, the complainant case succeeds on contest with cost.
Hence,
It is
Ordered
that the complaint case no.CC/35/2020 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP with cost of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand). The complainant Santana Bhowmick do get an award for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/-(Rupees fifteen lakh) together with interest @ 8 % per annum from 20.01.2029 till the date of payment, Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) towards deficiency in service and mental pain agony and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand)towards litigation cost. The OP is directed to pay Rs. 15, 55,000/-( Rupees fifteen lakh fifty five thousand) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of passing the final order together with interest failing which the entire award money shall carry interest of @ 8 % per annum from the date of passing the final order till the date of its realisation.
All Interim Applications (I.A) stand disposed of accordingly.
D.A to note in the trial register.
The case is accordingly disposed of.
Let a copy of this final order be supplied to both the parties at free of costs.
Dictated & corrected by me
.............................................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)
........................................................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)
I, concur,
................................................................
MEMBER
(NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY)
