DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE NO:  CC – 46  of  2018

 

Sri Uttam Debnath,

S/O- Sri Shyamal Debnath,

Kamalpur, Dhalai, Tripura – 799285. …..…......Complainant.

 

          -VERSUS-

 

1. The Branch Manager,

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Math Chowmuhani, Agartala,

 

 2. Corporate Office/Policy Issuing Office,

Reliance Centre, South Wing, 4th Floor,

Off Western Express Highway,

Santacruz (East) Mumbai- 400 055, India.

 

3. Policy Serving Branch Office,

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Anil Plaza 5th Floor,

Beside IDBI Building,

ABC, G.S. Road, Assam,

Guwahati, Assam – 781005. ............Opposite Parties.

 

 

__________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI  B. MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR B PAUL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C o u n s e l

For the Complainant : Sri Bhaskar Deb,

  Mrs. Sujata Deb(Gupta),

  Sri Bikram Paul,

  Advocate.

        

For the Opposite Parties : Sri Karnajit De,

  Sri Utpal Das, 

  Advocates.

 

JUDGMENT   DELIVERED   ON:  25.11.2019.

 

 

J U D G M E N T

The Complainant Sri Uttam Debnath set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaining deficiency in service committed by the O.Ps. 

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that complainant is owner of one mini bus bearing registration no- TR-04-1250, engine no. D 56008098, Chassis no. MC1E4FCA9GP005065 which was purchased by him on availing finance from the Indusind Bank, Agartala Branch. The complainant asserted that his vehicle is only source of income for maintaining his family. The said bus was insured with the O.P. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. The bus was plying on road under the route Kamalpur to Ambasa Railway Station. The complainant was possessing all valid documents of his vehicle including Insurance Policy and Route permit. On 16.06.17 at about 6.40 A.M. the bus met with an accident on Kamalpur - Ambasa Road. Thereafter the bus was seized by the police and subsequently on 29.07.2017 it was released on bail. On the same day, the complainant took his damaged vehicle to the workshop of Force Motors for repair and on that day he visited the Hyundai Show Room at Agartala and enquired from the office bearer of the show room about raising of Insurance claim. As per instruction of the office bearer, he met Tutan Das who looks after the insurance matter. He submitted all relevant documents of his vehicle to Sri Das who then assured him that he would prepare the claim papers and do the needful in the matter. The complainant was in contemplation that the O.P. Insurance Co. will satisfy his claim. As the complainant did not receive any response from Sri Das, he took up the matter with the Insurance Company on 17.07.17. After 4-5 days one Sri Bijan Chakraborty, Surveyor visited the workshop of the Force Motors at Barjala and conducted survey on his damaged vehicle. At that time the complainant furnished to Sri Chakraborty all relevant documents of his vehicle including estimated invoice which was prepared by the Manager of the workshop. On 26.09.17 the complainant got a letter from Sri Kailash Nath, Executive of the Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.  intimating him to hand over some documents to the investigator. The complainant accordingly handed over those documents to the Investigator, Sri Abhijit Deb. The complainant further stated in his complaint that on 18.09.17 he received another letter dt. 15.09.17 from the O.P. Insurance Co. wherein he was asked to give reply about the cause of belated insurance claim raised by him to the O.P. Insurance company. The complainant gave his reply on 23.09.17 and thereafter on 31.10.17 he again sent similar reply to the survey officer of the Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. at Gwuahati. On 09.11.17 the complainant visited the Branch office of the O.P. Insurance company at Agartala  where one officer of that office handed him over a letter dt. 30.10.17 whereby his Insurance claim was repudiated on ground that he did not have valid Route Permit when his vehicle met with the accident. After getting the said letter of the O.P. Insurance Co. he visited the branch office of the O.Ps at Agartala and informed one officer that when his vehicle met with the accident he had Temporary Route Permit but due to disorder in the computer system of the State Transport Department, the Department could not provide him with the permit and that it was on 20.09.17 the Transport Department renewed the previous permit. The complainant further stated in his complaint that due to the deficiency of service of the O.P. Insurance Company he suffered financially as well as mentally and that due to the negligence of the O.Ps also he could not repair his vehicle in time. On 29.11.17 the complainant sent a demand notice through his counsel claiming compensation and other relief for the damage caused to his vehicle due to the accident. The O.P. Insurance Co. did not give any reply to the Demand Notice. The complainant however, got his vehicle repaired from the workshop of one Babul Roy, Khayerpur, Agartala on payment of Rs.4,55,000/- which includes repairing and painting charges. For the purpose of supervising the repairing work, the complainant had to stay at Agartala in a rented house for about 2 months and thus he had to incur Rs.10,000/- as rent. 

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conduct of the O.Ps, the complainant filed the instant consumer complaint  claiming Rs.8,53,000/- against the O.Ps as repairing charges of his vehicle  and compensation etc. Hence, this case.   

 

2. Based on the complaint notices were issued to the O.Ps of the Insurance Company. The notices were duly served upon all the O.Ps. The O.Ps have appeared through their engaged Advocate. As the O.Ps have failed to submit written objection within the stipulated period of 45 days as per Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the case was ordered to be proceeded exparte against the O.Ps. 

 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

The complainant examined himself as P.W.1. He has submitted his examination in chief by way of affidavit. He was however, cross examined by the O.P. side only on law point. The complainant has produced 7 documents. All the documents were marked as Exhibit- 1 Series. 

 

  On the basis of the pleadings, evidence, both documentary and oral adduced by the complainant and from the trend of cross examination done by the O.P. side of the complainant, the following  points cropped up for determination:-

(I) Whether the O.P. insurance have rightly repudiated the Insurance claim of the complainant in respect of his vehicle which met an accident on 16.06.17?

(II) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/ relief from the O.Ps.?              

 

4. REASONS AND DECISION: 

Both sides have submitted their written arguments. We have gone through the pleadings of the complainant as well as the evidence put forwarded by the complainant and the cross examination part done on behalf of the O.P. of the complainant. We have considered the written arguments placed on record by both sides and also gone through the citations referred to by the O.P. side. 

 

It is evident from the case record that the complainant's mini bus bearing registration no- TR041250 met with an accident on 16.06.17 when it was plying on the way from Kamalpur to Ambasa railway station. The said bus was insured with the O.P. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. The complainant raised Insurance Claim against the O.Ps for the damage caused to his vehicle due to the accident. The O.Ps however, have repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant did not have valid route permit when his vehicle met with the accident. We find that the complainant has failed to prove that he was possessing valid route permit of his vehicle when the accident occurred. The complainant in his complaint as well as in his evidence in chief has asserted that when his insurance claim was rejected he had informed to one officer at the Agartala Branch of the Reliance General Insurance Company  Ltd. that during the period of the accident he had temporary permit issued by the Transport Department and that the Transport Department renewed the said permit on 20.09.2017. The accident of his vehicle occurred on 16.06.2017. So, it is evident that the route permit was renewed after 3 months and 4 days of the accident. We further find that the complainant asserted in his complaint as well as in his evidence in chief that due to disorder of the computer system in the office of the Transport Department, the Department could not provide him with the renewed permit in time. We find that the complainant has not bring on record and proved the renewed permit. Moreover, he also has failed to substantiate his claim by adducing evidence that due to the disorder of the computer system, the Transport Department had failed to provide him the renewed permit of his vehicle in time. We also observed from the case record that the complainant has not adduced either a copy of FIR or G.D. Entry to support the incident of accident of his vehicle occurred on 16.06.17. Withholding of such a vital document in our opinion affects the merit of the consumer complaint. The contention of the O.Ps that the consumer complaint is not maintainable on ground that the complainant has used his vehicle for commercial gain does not appear to us convincing as the complainant has emphatically stated in his complaint as well as in his evidence in chief that his vehicle is the only source of income for maintaining his family. Moreover, the O.P. has not produced rebuttal evidence to controvert the assertion of the complainant about his sole  income was from mini bus. Hence, the citations referred to by Learned Advocate for the O.Ps regarding their contention that the complainant does not come under of purview of the definition of 'Consumer' are not applicable to the case in hand. 

On careful perusal of the exhibited materials/ documents on record and that of the submissions made from both sides, we find that vehicle of the complainant was plied on public road without any valid permit when the accident occurred which is a gross violation of the Section- 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is relevant to refer here sub- Section 1 of Section- 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It states that ''No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passenger or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorizing him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used.'' Admittedly, complainant's vehicle is a mini bus and at the relevant point of time it was used for carrying passengers on public road. In view of this, we do not find any illegality committed by the O.P. Insurance Company in repudiating the Insurance Claim of  the complainant. We are of the opinion that the letter issued by the O.Ps dated 30.10.17 for rejecting the Insurance Claim of the complainant was proper and justified as the claim made by the complainant was in violation of the policy condition No.1 and Section- 66 (1) of the Motor Vehicles  Act, 1988. 

 

5. In view of the discussion made above, we find that the complainant has failed to make out a case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the O.Ps. Consequently, the complainant according to us is not entitled to get compensation or any relief from the O.Ps.

Both the issues framed above are answered accordingly.

In the result, the Consumer Complaint filed by the complainant, Sri Uttam Debnath is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. 

    Announced.

 

 

SRI B. MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

SMT. DR B PAUL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

SRI  U. DAS

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA