District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly
PETITIONER
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Complaint Case No.CC/243/2022
(Date of Filing:-13.12.2022)
- Sanju Kumari Jha,
Residing at 11/3, R.B.C. Road, Rishra, P.O. and P.S. Rishra
District:-Hooghly, Pin:-712248
- SBI General Insurance Company Ltd.
(Through its Authorised Representative)
15th floor, PS Srijan Corporate Park, Plot No. G-2,
Block-EP and GP,
Sector-V Bidhannagar, Kolkata-700091, P.S. Electronic Complex
……….Opposite Party
MR. DEBASISH BANDYOPADHYAY, PRESIDENT
MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, MEMBER
MRS. BABITA CHOUDHURY, MEMBER
Dtd. 30.10.2024
Final Order/Judgment
DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA:- PRESIDING MEMBER
The instant consumer case filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 originates from the grievances of the complainant arising out of OP Insurance Company’s denial to entertain the claim for reimbursement of an amount of Rs.1,14,959/- against a vehicle insurance policy maintained by the complainant with the OP.
Brief facts of the case:-
Reportedly, the petitioner, a registered owner of a passenger vehicle having registration No. WB 17 2699, Model Maruti, Tour S Diesel was in possession of registration certificate, tax token, fitness certificate, and PUC certificate in respect of the vehicle.
The said vehicle was under cover of Insurance policy issued by OP Insurance Company having policy No.901523852/R151925790, valid from 19.04.2022 to 18.04.2023.
However, on 18.07.2022 at about 4-30 P.M. while the Complainant along with her husband were plying through Dankuni Road, a truck while overtaking the Complainant’s car smashed the vehicle badly causing substantial damage to the car.
When the vehicle was taken to one Bhandari Automobiles of Serampore Hooghly for necessary repair, the repairing cost was estimated at Rs.1,14,959/-
As the vehicle was within the coverage of the insurance policy, a formal intimation was sent to the OP Insurance Company regarding the accident and the corresponding claim against the policy was placed before the OP.
Routine inspection from the OP’s end was made but finally the OP refused to reimburse the claim. Besides, the OP allegedly prevented the delivery of the vehicle to the Complainant by the said repairing unit.
Subsequently, several mails are claimed to have been sent to the OP by the Complainant. But when the OP showed consistent heedlessness, the Complainant was compelled to bear the cost of repairing of Rs.1,14,959/- and get the vehicle released.
On 15.11.2022, the Complainant visited the OP’s office in persuasion of the insurance claim only to get refused in this regard.
Consequent upon that, a legal notice was sent to the OP on 22.11.2022 by speed post which was duly delivered. But the same yielded no result.
Considering this an ‘unfair trade practice’ on the OP’s part, the complainant finally approached to this Commission by filing the complaint petition seeking direction upon the OP insurance Company to settle the insurance claim of Rs.1,14,959/- , pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony and financial loss, pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards litigation cost and other reliefs as per law and equity.
The Complainant along with her complaint petition has annexed copies of 1) confirmation of 64VB compliance through the OP Insurance Company, 2) certificate cum policy schedule, 3) certificate of registration in form-23, 4) certificate of fitness, 5) pollution under control certificate, 6) tax receipt of Transport Department, 7) driving license, 8) job cards of the car repairing unit, 9) copies of legal notice sent to the OP and postal track report thereof and 10) communication received from the OP.
Evidence on affidavit filed by the Complainant is almost replica of the complaint petition.
The Complainant is a resident within the district of Hooghly and the claim preferred by the Complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.50,00,000/-
Thus this Commission has both territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in this case.
Now whether there was any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the OP’s part and whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief will be discussed in the concluding part of the order simultaneously as the issues are mutually interrelated.
Defense case
So far as the instant case is concerned, notices were served on the opposite party. Apart from filing a written statement, the OP preferred not to make their appearance in course of hearing. Thus the case ran ex parte against the sole OP.
In spite of filing a petition for setting aside the ex parte order, the OP did not appear when the petition was taken up for hearing.
In the written statement OP Insurance Company has denied almost all the allegations leveled against them. The OP denies to have extended any sort of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice.
It is further claimed that the instant petition is false, malicious, incorrect, mala fide and an abuse of the process of the law.
However even after admitting the incident involving the accident, causing a survey of the extent of damage, assessment of loss, receipt of the final survey report, the OP claims that the ‘shown vehicle during pre-inspection is different from the vehicle reported for loss’.
The OP in support of their allegation claims to have annexed corroborative evidences like policy with terms and conditions, claim form, survey report and repudiation letter.
But surprisingly no such documents have been annexed physically with the written statement.
The OP did not feel it a necessity to substantiate their allegations against the Complainant by producing evidence on affidavit. Besides, the OP showed a grossly indifferent attitude towards the case proceedings.
Decision with reasons:-
Materials on records are perused. The allegation leveled by the OP that the shown vehicle during pre-inspection is different from the vehicle reported for loss is apparently baseless, whimsical, arbitrary and bereft of any hard evidence. On the other hand the vehicle number as mentioned in the policy schedule and job card of the vehicle repairing unit is same.
Apparently there is no reason to draw the inference that during survey by the OP insurance Company there was any manipulation by the Complainant in the matter of showing the vehicle to the surveyor.
Thus the decision to repudiate the claim by the OP was hasty and unfair. To avoid its liability toward insured the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of malpractice. The OP in the instant case has grossly failed in this regard.
In view of the above this District Commission is of the opinion that deficiency of service on the part of the OP insurance Company in the instant case is glaring.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the complaint case no.243/2022 be and the same stands allowed ex parte but in part.
Op Insurance Company is directed to reimburse the claim to the extent of Rs,1,14,959/-. Besides, OP will also pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and further Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.
OP will have to comply with this order within 45 days from passing of this order failing which OP will be liable to pay a cost of Rs.20,000/- towards Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgements/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
