West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/92/2017

Mrinal Maity - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Swapan Kumar Dasmal

29 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

    Bibekananda Pramanik, President

and

     Pulak Kumar Singha, Member

Complaint Case No.92/2017

                                                                      1)Mrinal Maity, S/o-Late Kedarnath Maity,

                                                                     2)Subrata Maity,S/o-Late Bibhuti Bhusan Maity,

                                                 All resident of Sepoy Bazar,P.O.Midnapore,P.S.Kotwali,                                                                                 

                                                                        Dist- Paschim Medinipur.  

                                                                                             ………..……Complainants.

                                                                              Vs.

1.  Bajaj Allianz General Insurance  Co. Ltd., Kharagpur Branch Office at

     2^nd floor,  M.S.Tower, Atwal Real Estate, O.T.Road

At-Inda, P.O.Kharagpur, P.S.-Kharagpur (T),  Dist- Paschim Medinipur, Pin-721305.

                                                                            .....……….….Opp. Party.                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr. Swapan Kumar Dasmal, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Pinaki Sengupta, Advocate.

                                                          

                                                                                        Date of filling:- 22/05/2017

  Decided on : -    29/05/2018

                               

ORDER

                          Pulak Kumar Singha, Member –In short the case of the complainant is that complainant is a owner of  bus bearing no.WB-33A/8447  and said vehicle was duly insured with the O.P. On 12.12.2016 said vehicle made  an accident as a result said vehicle was damaged.  Complainant intimated the incident to O.P. on 31.12.2016 and damaged vehicle was surveyed by O.P.  Complainant lodged claim for compensation with all relevant documents upon O.P. but O.P repudiated the claim on the ground of delay

                                                                                                                                                 Contd………………….P/2

 

 

                                                                                    ( 2 )

 intimation to the O.P.  Complainant appeared before this Forum for getting compensation and cost from the O.P. as per his complaint.

                     O.P. contested the case by filing written objection denying the allegations of complainant stating inter alia, that lodged claim after lapse of 20 days after the accident.  Investigator collected information that complainants have sold the vehicle as such complainants have no insurable interest, this O.P. has no deficiency in service, the liability of O.P. will not be more than the loss assessed by the surveyor  if claim is admissible,  O.P. prays for dismissal of complaint.

                                                   Decision with reasons

                        We travelled over the complaint, written objection, evidence, documents and considered the argument of both sides.  Complainant to prove his case adduced evidence by filing examination –in-chief with affidavit and he tendered himself as PW-1 and also filed some documents which are marked (exbt.1 to 10).  PW-1 also cross-examined by O.P. complainant also adduced another witness one Sakshi Gopal Ponda as PW-2 who also cross-examined by O.P.  On the other hand, O.P. did not adduce any evidence to establish their defence.  Fact of the case and from the documents it appears that complainants are registered owner of a bus in question and they entrusted their vehicle by way of power of attorney to PW-2 to look after and maintenance the vehicle.  The vehicle in question made an accident and got damaged.  O.P’s investigator investigated the damaged vehicle and assessed loss.  After the accident the said vehicle placed in a garage for repairing the damage portion and complainant paid Rs.2,20,000/- for cost of repairing.  Thereafter complainant submitted a claim for compensation along with documents before O.P. but O.P. repudiated the claim on the ground that complainants intimated the matter of accident after 20 days of accident and complainants are not the owner of the vehicle as such they are not entitled to get claim.  O.Ps investigator collected some statements as alleged from PW-2 that he purchased the vehicle from complainants, which O.P. fails to prove.   From power of attorney i.e. (exbt.5) we find that complainants made power of attorney to PW-2 to look after the vehicle in question and in cross-examination of O.P., complainant admitted that power of attorney was executed in favour of PW-2 to look after the vehicle and in evidence of PW-2 himself stated that complainant executed power of attorney in his favour.  But O.P. could not rebutted those evidences by adducing any cogent evidence or any supported documents. From the documents it reveals that complainants are the registered owner of the vehicle in question on the date of accident as such they are entitled to claim. In respect of delay intimation to o.p. by the complainants it appears from the medical documents that complainant no.1 was under medical treatment after the date of accident and 20 days delay of intimation to the o.p.in case of accident of

                                                                                                                                         Contd………………….P/3

 

 

                                                                                                  ( 3 )

vehicle will not fatal the merit of claim compensation. O.P. did not produce the report of surveyor, so we are in dark that how much amount assessed by the loss assessor. From the copy of insurance policy, we find that insured declared value (IDV)mentioned Rs.3,11,995/-(exbt.3). It appears that complainants paid Rs.2,20,000/- to M/S Modern Body Builders Repairing Centre and also paid further Rs.1,96,000/- i.e. total paid Rs.4,16,000/- for the purpose of repairing the damaged vehicle . O.P. did not deny the matter of road traffic accident and damaged the vehicle and o.ps. investigator inspected the damaged vehicle in the repairing centre.

                    In view of the discussions hereinabove that complainants proved that they are the registered owner of the vehicle in question and o.p. has failed to prove their defence by any cogent evidence as such the repudiation of claim of  complainant is not legal. Complainant is entitled to get an order of compensation with cost as complainant has been suffering from harassment, mental pain and also monetary loss. O.P.is negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainants.

Thus complaint case succeeds.              

                                        Hence, it is,

                                                           Ordered 

                                                              that the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. with cost.

                                                    O.P. is directed to pay Rs.3,11,900/- (as IDV)to pay Rs.20,000/- compensation for harassment mental pain and monetary loss and to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainants within one month from the date of order.

 Failure to comply the order o.p. shall be liable to pay Rs.5,000/-per month as penal cost to the Legal Aid Fund of this Forum till full realization.

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

                 Dictated and Corrected by me

                           Sd/- P.K. Singha                                                                          Sd/- B. Pramanik. 

                                 Member                                                                                        President

                                                                                                                                  District Forum

                                                                                                                               Paschim Medinipur