State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Claim Manager, Hdfc Ergo General ... vs Smt. Papiya Nandi, 6N, Satchasipara ... on 17 April, 2014
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal 11A, MIRZA GHALIB STREET, KOLKATA 700 087 S.C. CASE NO FA/529/2013 (Arisen out of Order Dated 07.11.2012 in Case No.cc/296/2011 of Unit-I, District Kolkata DF) DATE OF FILING :17.05.2013 DATE OF ORDER:17.04.2014 APPELLANT : The Claim Manager, HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1, Ho chi Min Sarani, Kolkata-700016, Kolkata, West Bengal RESPONDENT : Smt. Papiya Nandi, 6N, Satchasipara Road, Kolkata-700002 Kolkata, West Bengal. BEFORE HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Debasis Bhattacharya. HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Jagannath Bag. FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr.Debjit Dutta, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT : Mr. Lakshman Nandi, Authorised person.. Sri Debasis Bhattacharya , Member
Being aggrieved and/or dissatisfied with the order dated 07.11.2012, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Unit-I, Kolkata, in Case No. 296/2011, the OP thereof has preferred this appeal.
By such order, the case has allowed on contest with cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the Complainant and the OP has further been directed to pay Rs.40,000/- towards repairing cost of the vehicle in question and compensation of Rs.30,000/- only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- within 45 days from the date of communication of the order, i.d., an interest @9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the Complainant till full realization.
The case of the Complainant in a nutshell is that on 30.03.2010, some miscreants broke the front glass of the Bus bearing registration no. WB/04D- 8815 in Route No. 34B & 34B/1, and the same was brought to the attention of the OP for the loss, on which they made enquiries for the loss and asked the Complainant to make the necessary repairing from her side, which cost nearly Rs.40,000/-. All the documents for repairing of the vehicle have been submitted to the Insurance Company for getting the claim. But, they informed her by letter No. Nil dated 08.07.2010 that because she is not owner of the said vehicle but the West Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation, so she is not entitled to the claim. Further, in another case, the claim was sanctioned in respect of Bus No. WB/04O-8958 being claim reference No. 900419 dated 17.06.2010. She produced a no objection letter for getting the claim from the Managing Director, West Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., but still the Insurance Company did not inform anything to her. Furthermore, the Insurance Company did not turn up before the Consumer Affairs Department, Kolkata in the matter when called for. Accordingly, lastly, this case.
Besides the denial of the contentions of the Complainant, the only case of the OP is that the insurance being a contract based upon the principle of uberimma fide, i.e., utmost good faith, but at the time of taking the policy, the Complainant did not disclose that she is not the real owner of the vehicle and the actual owner is West Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development Financial Corporation. For such wrongful information and misrepresentation of material fact, the claim of the Complainant was repudiated. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly, the case be dismissed.
It is to be considered if the impugned order suffers from any kind of anomaly or irregularity so as to make an interference in it.
Decision with reasons.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that for a claim of Rs.40,000/-, another Rs.45,000/- as cost and compensation has been awarded by the Ld. District Forum. Even the Complainant has not made any such prayer, and the same is an unjustified one. In this case, only one G.D. has been made by the Complainant, and there is no substantiation of the claim made therein. Nor any case under section 427, I.P.C. was made or initiated by the Complainant. Further, the estimate for repairing was to the tune of Rs.53,085/-, but the claim for repairing cost is for Rs.40,000/-, which is also not substantiated.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has submitted that a genuine claim of the Complainant has been denied unnecessarily by the Insurance Company, for which she has been harassed and dragged on by the said Insurance Company.
Though the main ground for repudiation was that the ownership of the vehicle lies with W.B.T.I.D.C. Ltd., but this point has not been agitated by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant very much. His main contention is for awarding an enormous and huge amount of compensation along with the cost of the case, and further litigation cost. The case has been properly evaluated by the Ld. District Forum, and no lapse on the part of the Complainant in the matter has been found. A sham dispute has been made by the Insurance Company to repudiate the claim of the Complainant. So, there is nothing to interfere in the matter of the impugned order, except the burden of compensation and cost awarded against the Insurance Company.
Accordingly, the impugned order stands, but with some modifications, as detailed below.
The appeal is allowed in part on contest against the Respondent. The cost of repairing of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand) only is untouched, but the other awards of compensation and costs are reduced to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) only, respectively, in place of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.10,000/- + Rs.5,000/-, as in the impugned order. Such amount is to be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent within 30 days, in default the interest as stipulated by the Ld. District Forum will accrue.
MEMBER MEMBER