State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Wpil Ltd. vs Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd. on 12 September, 2019
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/995/2016 ( Date of Filing : 17 Oct 2016 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 05/09/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/61/2013 of District Kolkata-I(North)) 1. WPIL Ltd. Regd. office at Trinity Plaza, 3rd Floor, 84/1 A, Topsia Road(S), Kolkata - 700 046. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd. Constantia Commercial Complex, 2nd Floor, 11, Dr. U.N. Bramhachari Street, Kolkata - 700 017. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Sandip Kumar Dutta. Ms. Sanhita Shaoo., Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Debasish Nath., Advocate Dated : 12 Sep 2019 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
The complaint case filed by the Appellant, M/s WPIL Ltd. since been dismissed by the Ld. District Forum, this Appeal is moved.
The complaint case was filed over repudiation of Appellant's claim by the Respondent Insurance Company. In this regard, the Respondent submitted that the said claim was rejected for violation of policy terms and conditions.
We heard both sides in the matter and gone through the documents on record.
Undisputedly, the consignment suffered damage when the vehicle in question met a road accident. Though the policy terms contained that the consignment should be covered by tarpaulin, it can be nobody's case that, had this policy condition been scrupulous followed, it would save the consignment from being getting damaged. Rejection of the instant claim on this frivolous ground is not tenable at all.
Further, it is alleged by the Appellant that the condition for covering the consignment with tarpaulin was unilaterally included in the Certificate of Insurance issued on 14-02-2011 and that the said condition was not there in the original policy issued on 31-01-2011.
Significantly, the Respondent has not disputed such allegation. In our considered opinion, the Insurance Company cannot unilaterally change any policy condition behind the back of the Insuree.
For all these reasons, the arbitrary decision of the Respondent is not tenable in law.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent alleged that the accident took place due to reckless driving of the vehicle by the driver concerned and in order to buttress such fact, he drew our attention to the survey report of B. K. Agarwala & Associates. On closer scrutiny of the said report, it transpires that the preliminary Surveyor, Mr. B.N.Murty reported that the driver could not judge the clearance under the railway bridge in dark and while crossing, the motor hit the bridge. If the opinion of Preliminary Surveyor is anything to go by, we cannot hold the driver concerned guilty of carelessness and negligence, as opinioned by the Surveyor, B.K. Agarwala & Associates. As ill luck would have it, the accident took place.
We, therefore, deem it fit and proper to direct the Respondent to settle the instant claim within a period of 40 days hence by paying Rs. 4,31,936/- (as assessed by the Surveyor) along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. over the aforesaid sum from the date of filing of the complaint case till full and final payment is made. The Respondent shall further pay Rs. 20,000/- as cost to the Appellant within the aforesaid stipulated time frame.
The Appeal, accordingly, stands allowed in part. Consequent thereof, the impugned order stands set aside. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER