- This is a petition filed by one Md. Fazlur Rohim Choudhury (hereinafter referred as the petitioner) against the Chief Regional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, G.S. Road, Bhangagarh, Guwahati and two others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for recovery of money, compensation and other relief.
- The facts and circumstances for filing of the aforesaid petition as narrated by the petitioner are as follows:-
The complainant is the registered owner of a Mercedes Benz Private Car bearing Registration No.AS-02/H-8888 which he duly insured with National Insurance Company Limited and on last 18/03/2013 at about 12.30 P.M., the said vehicle met with an accident which he parked at road side near Hamm Hospital, Hojai. As a result of the said accident, the car of the complainant damaged badly and subsequently, he lodged claim before the opposite party No.3 to receive the benefit of the Insurance. The complainant stated that as there was no dealer and workshop of his Car in Assam, so, he had to send the same to Kolkata for repairing and the dealer of Mercedes Benz Company at Kolkata submitted cost of repairing which approximately assessed at Rs.7,05,191.93 P and the same was delivered to the opposite party No.2 who allowed him to repair his car at an authorised dealer /workshop. Complainant stated that after repairment of the said vehicle, the authorised dealer submitted invoice summery for a sum of Rs.5,19,325.00 P payable to the company as repairing charge and the same was furnished with the opposite parties. Thereafter on 10/03/2014, the opposite party No.3 sent a letter with settlement voucher to the complainant requesting him to furnish details of his Bank Account and put signature on the said format from where it was revealed that opposite parties intended to settle his claim at Rs.2,43,000.00 only. The complainant further stated that the opposite parties conducted survey through investigator who without any basis arbitrarily assessed the payable amount as Rs.3,24,467.72 but in terms of policy, the insurer shall be liable to pay at the rate on which dealer /workshop of the vehicle assessed. The complainant stated that the opposite parties conducted a second survey and surveyor assessed the cost at Rs.2,43,000.00 which is irrational and without basis. He stated that he is entitled to receive the amount assessed by the dealer /workshop and actual cost of repairing of his vehicle i.e. Rs.5,89,325.00 and the amount offered by the opposite parties is quite irrational and arbitrary. Thus, the failure of opposite parties to pay him the actual amount of repairing charge of his vehicle as submitted by authorised dealer/workshop amount to deficiency in service. Hence, the petitioner filed this petition before this Commission seeking relief.
3. The opposite parties filed written version denying all the allegation levelled against them by the complainant. By their written version, the opposite parties stated that the complaint is not attracted U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act and that the case is purely in civil nature to determine the quantum of damage. The opposite parties further stated that the complainant has failed to show how accident took place and what about the police case. The opposite parties also stated that the complainant alleged that his vehicle was hit by some other vehicle from the front side and that being so, the physical condition of the vehicle after occurrence should be shown by police report and police report not being furnished in this case, the complainant is not entitled for any relief. The opposite parties again submitted that a survey for the damage vehicle was conducted by one competent surveyor, namely, Koushik Saha, a Chartered Engineer who after taking all the aspects of the matter assessed the compensation at Rs.3,24,467.72only and on basis of his report, the company re-assessed the compensation by their penal of expert and offered to settle the claim at Rs.2,43,000.00 only. The opposite parties further stated that the claim of claimant is too inflammatory and irrational. Under the above circumstances the opposite parties pray for dismissal of the complaint petition.
4. Upon pleadings of the parties, the following points have come out for discussion and decision :-
- Whether the opposite parties by denying to offer to pay Rs.5,19,325.00 to the complainant which he incurred for repairing his damaged Car committed deficiency in service?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
5. Both parties filed evidence in affidavit of one witness each and the opposite parties also exhibited several documents in support of their claim. The witnesses were cross-examined by the opponents.
- Written argument filed by the parties and peruse the same.
7. Decision and reasons thereof:-
For the sake of convenience both the two points are taken together for discussion and decision.
The claim of the petitioner is that he duly insured his of Mercedes Benz Private Car bearing Registration No.AS-02/H_888 with the National Insurance Corporation which met with an accident on last 18/03/2013 and as a result, the said car was damaged badly and as there was no dealer and workshop of his car in Assam, so, he had to send the same to Kolkata for repairing the same and after repairing of the vehicle, the authorised dealer submitted invoice summery for a sum of Rs.5,19,325.00 payable to them as repairing charge but the opposite parties offered to settle his claim at Rs.2,43,000.00 only and thus, the said act on the part of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service . In support of his claim, the petitioner as P.W.1 adduced evidence to the effect that he being the registered owner of Mercedes Benz Private Car bearing Registration No.AS-02/H-8888 duly insured the same with the National Insurance Company and on last 18/03/2013 at about 12.30 P.M. the said vehicle met with an accident which he parked at road side near Hamm Hospital, Hojai. Further evidence of P.W.1 is that as a result of the said accident, his car was damaged badly and he lodged his claim before the opposite party No.3 to receive the benefit of the Insurance. He deposed that there was no dealer and workshop of his Car in Assam, so, he had to send the same to Kolkata for repairing and the authorised dealer at Kolkata submitted the cost of repairing which approximately assessed at 7,05,191.93 and the same was delivered to opposite parties who had allowed him to repair his car at an authorised dealer /workshop. Complainant as P.W.1 further adduced evidence that after repairing his car, the authorised dealer submitted invoice summery for a sum of Rs.5,19,325.00 payable to them as repairing charge and the same was furnished with the opposite parties and on 10/03/2014, the opposite party No.3 sent a letter with settlement voucher to this complainant requesting him to furnish details of Bank Account and put signature on the said format from where it was revealed that opposite parties intended to settle the claim at Rs.2,43,000.00 only which is quit irrational and arbitrary.
The opposite parties adduced evidence in affidavit of one. SriAmrjit Baruah, Branch Manager of National Insurance company posted at Nagaon as D.W.1. In his evidence in affidavit, this D.W. deposed that the complainant alleged that his vehicle was hit by some other vehicle from the front side and that being so, the physical condition of the vehicle after the occurrence should be shown by police report and police report in this case not being furnished by the complainant, he is not entitled for any relief. The D.W.1 also deposed that a survey for the damage vehicle was conducted by one competent surveyor, namely, Koushik Saha a Chartered Engineer who after taking all the aspects of the matter assessed the compensation at Rs.3,24,467.72 and on basis of his report, the company re-assessed the compensation by their penal of expert and offered to settle the claim at Rs.2,43,000.00.This witness further deposed that the claim of claimant is too inflammatory and irrational and hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. This witness also exhibited the claim calculation as Ext. A, letter to the complainant as Ext.B and surveyor report as Ext .C.
8. The admitted position is that the complainant duly insured his damaged vehicle with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. and the opposite parties offered Rs. 2,43,000/- to the complainant to settle his claim. The complainant alleged that his vehicle was hit by some other vehicle from the front side and got damaged. However, he did not lodge any F.I.R. before the police. Though police report does not mandate who was at fault but it can be persuasive for the insurance companies to justify the claim and also for the court to decide the fault of the parties. In addition, if Police officer believe that one driver violated the law, they can issue a citation, conduct further investigation or even arrest the driver. Generally no insurance company will entertain any claim without an F.I.R. and without informing police, no F.I.R. is issued. Therefore, the first and foremost duty of the claimant of insurance benefit is to inform police and lodge F.I.R. immediately after accident. In this case, the complainant failed to inform police and lodge F.I.R. which makes it difficult for the opposite parties to justify his claim without an F.I.R. However, the opposite parties offered Rs. 2,43,000/- to the complainant to settle his claim and we do not find any illegality on the part of the opposite parties while offering Rs. 2,43,000/- for his damaged vehicle as the complainant himself in fault of not informing police regarding the accident of his vehicle and not filing copy of F.I.R. before the opposite parties.
Hence, in view of above discussion points (i) and (ii) are answered in negative.
O R D E R
9. In view of the above discussion, it is found that the complainant has failed to prove that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in the instant case.
Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner U/S 12 of the Consumer protection is dismissed on contest with cost.
Inform all the parties concern.
Given under the hand and seal of this forum, we signed and delivered this Judgment on this 23rd Day of April 2021.
