West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/104/2018

Smt. Mousumi Banerjee (Bhattacharjee), W/O- Late Babai Bhattacharjee, D/O- Sri Pradip Banerjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Debraj Chakraborty

09 Feb 2022

ORDER

The instant case has been initiated by the complainant U/S – 12 of C.P. Act,1986 against the Opposite Parties claiming an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 /- with 9 % interest and Compensation  + Litigation cost of Rs.1,00,000/- Total – Rs. 2,00,000/-.  

The fact of the case, in brief, is that the husband of the Complainant namely Babai Bhattachariya purchased a Motor Cycle Bajaj Discover – 125 M vide registration no. WB/62D 6397 from the Opposite Party No.2.The said motor cycle was insured by Opposite Party No.1being policy no.1517552312068944 valid from14.09.2015. On 04.01.2016 at about 05.00 PM T Pransagar Bazar, under P.S. – Gangarampur, Dakshin Dinajpur, Babai Bhattachariya met with an accident due to which the said Babai Bhattachariya received serious bodily injury and the motor cycle was also damaged. The said Babai Bhattachariys was taken to the Diatrict Hospital and then to PG Hospital, Kolkata where he succumbed to his injury on 13.01.2016. The Post Mortem was done 14.01.2016 at SSKM Hospital, Kolkata. Thereafter, the said road traffic accident was intimated  to Gangarampur P.S. and a case was registered vide Gmp PS case no. 220/16 dated 29.04.2016 U/S – 279/427/304A IPC. The said accident was intimated to Opposite Party No.2 but month after month and years elapsed as the Opposite Party No.1&2 did not respond to the death intimation of the deceased. A notice was also sent through regd. Post on14.04.2018 and duly received on21.04.2018 but the Opposite Party No.1did not make any communication or attempt to pay the insured amount as the coverage of PA. A legal notice was also sent to the Opposite Party No.1 on 23.08.2018 but in vain.  Having no alternative, the Complainant filed the instant case for relief as prayed in the plaint.

            Notice was duly served upon the opposite Parties and after receiving the notice, the Opposite Party No.1 appeared before this commission and filed his written version. The Opposite Party No.2&3 did not appear before this commission in spite of valid service of notice, so the case is proceeded ex pare against them.

            By filing written version and additional written version the Opposite Party No.1 has denied the material allegation of the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.1  has stated that several reminders in regard to the said policy no. was sent for documents to the Complainant but no documents was submitted before the Opposite Party No.1.So, the claim of the Complainant was rejected. In this way , there is no negligence and carelessness on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. The claim petition is not maintainable. Hence, the present case is liable to be dismissed.

To prove his case , the complainant has filed

(i) Original certificate of Registration

           (ii)  Original Tax token

           (iii)Original Insurance Policy

          (iv) Photo copy of Post Mortem Report

           (v)Legal heir certificate 

           (vi)Certified copy of FIR

           (vii)Certified copy of final report 

           (viii) Certified copy of seizure list 

           (ix)  Letter dated 18.04.2018 of the Complainant 

           (x)  Legal notice dated 23.08.2018

           (xi) Estimate given by O.P.No.2

                      On the other hand, the Opposite Parties have filed

           (i) Request letter sent by the O.P.No.1 to the Complainant 

           (ii) Repudiation latter.

In view of the above mentioned facts, the following points are cropped up for consideration  

      POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

             

       1.  Whether the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Parties?

       2.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite

              Parties ?            

   3.  Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for? 

                                       

                                        DECISION  WITH  REASONS

 

           We have heard argument by Ld. Advocates for the both sides at length. We have also gone through the evidence on affidavit and written argument filed by both the parties. We also perused the documents produced by the Complainant and the Opposite Party No.1 before this Commission.           

              At the time of argument Ld advocate for the Complainant narrated the fact of the case as mentioned in the plaint. He further submitted that the claim of the Complainant is legal, genuine, legitimate and the Opposite Party is liable to pay the claim as per his own undertaking laid down in the policy. It is also established that there is a gross negligence and deficiency in rendering service towards the policy holder on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Party No.1 and there is deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. So, the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

            On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 argued that the instant case is not mainatainable either in law or in facts. Sevaral reminders in regard to request for documents has been served upon the claimant side, but neither any intention nor any interest towards the request sought by  the Opposite Party No.1 has been considered by the claimant side. Ld. Advocate further submitted that it is not for the petitioner but for the insurance Co. to decide which papers are necessary for settling insurance claim by it. ( 2008(2) CPR232 (NC) – Dijabar Sahoo Vs The Branch Manager.so, there is no question arises about deficiency in service so, the claim petition must be dismissed with cost.

          Now, let us discuss all the points one by one. 

Point No. 1 

           

         On perusal of materials on record, it appears that the vehicle( motor cycle) was insured with the Opposite Party No.1 and  life of the deceased was under coverage of P.A. coverage of Rs.1,00,000/- . If that be the so, then it is clear that the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Party No.1 according to section (2) (i) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with Consumer Protection Act,2019. 

           Accordingly, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant.  

Point Nos. 2 & 3 

             

              Both these points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.  

              It is an admitted fact that the husband of the Complainant was a policy holder of Opposite Party No.1 and the motor cycle of the husband of the Complainant was insured with the Opposite Party No.1 and the life of the husband of the Complainant was under coverage of P.A. coverage of Rs.1,00,000/- and the husband of the Complainant died on 13.01.2016 due to a motor accident on 04.01.2016.   

  Now, from the additional written version, it appears that the Opposite Party No.1 sent request letter to the complainant on 07.09.2017.07.11.2017 and 17.04 2018 to submit required documents but the copy of the said letters  have not been produced before this commission whereas in the said additional written version it has been stated that the said letters have been attached with the additional written version. The said contention of the Opposite Party No.1 has been denied by the Complainant. Further , a request letter dated 17.04.2018 has been filed by the Opposite Party No.1 but the same is only computerized copy of the letter. There is no postal receipt nor signature of the receiver has been found with the said letter. So, the contention of the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 that request letter has been sent to the complainant demanding documents, is not believable.  

  Again, the claim of the Complainant has been repudiated by the Opposite Party No.1 on 10.07.2018 on the ground that the Complainant has failed to submit required documents before the Opposite Party No.1.

    Here, it has been established that the story of sending request letter by the Opposite Party No.1to the Complainant, has not been believed for the reason stated above so, the repudiation of the claim of the Complainant is fully inappropriate and has been done whimsically. . In such circumstances, we rely upon the observation held in (2019) CJ 969 (N.C.) that Claim neither repudiated nor settled – Insurance Company not followed Regulation 9 of Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority ( Protection of Policy holders` Interest) Regulation, 2002 – Deficiency in service. Thus, it is crystal clear that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

         From the four corners of the case, we do not find any deficiency in service against the Opposite Party No.2 and no relief has been sought for against the Pro-Forma Opposite Party No.3.

            In view of the above mentioned discussions, it has been established that the Complainant is a bona fide consumer to the Opposite Party No.1 and there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1

 

 

Accordingly, both these points are decided in favour of the Complainant. 

Hence, it is

 

                                                           O R D E R E D

 

            That the Consumer Case No. 104 of 2018 is allowed on contest in part against the Opposite Party No.1 with cost and dismissed ex parte against the Opposite Party No.2&3 .

           The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh) only along with an interest @ 8% from the date of filing of this case till the date of realization by issuing an account payee cheque in favour of the Complainant within 45 days failing which the Complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per law. The Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) towards Compensation and Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand) towards litigation cost.

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