West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/187/2017

Susanta Marik - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Asim Kumar Dutta

04 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

    Bibekananda Pramanik, President

and  

     Pulak Kumar Singha, Member. 

Complaint Case No.187/2017

                                                                Susanta Marik and Anil Marik, S/o-Mathura Marik,                                                                                    

                                                              Vill-Mallick Danga, Benadhapra, P.O. & P.S.-Garhbeta,

                                                                                             Dist- Paschim Medinipur.  

                                                                                                                              ………..……Complainant.

                                                                                                               Vs.

                                                             1) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance  Co. Ltd., O.T. Road,

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

                                                            2) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., 3^rd Floor, ECO,

                                                                   Space, Plot no.11/F/11 (Old No. AA-II/Block-2, IT),

                                                                      New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata-700156.

                                                                                                         .....……….….Opp. Parties.                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr.Ashim Kumar Dutta, Advocate.

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

                                                           

                                                                                        Date of filling:-  24/11/2017

  Decided on : -    04/05/2018

                               

ORDER

                          Pulak Kumar Singha , Member –In short the case of the complainant is that complainant is a owner of Truck bearing no.WB-33A/3769 and said vehicle was duly insured with the O.Ps. On 23/10/2016 at about 2-30 a.m. said truck met an accident for which the truck in question damaged. The matter of accident was intimated to the concern police station as well to the O.Ps. but Ops. did not sent spot surveyor. After some days of accident complainant compelled  to towed the damaged vehicle in a garage for  repairing O.Ps. surveyor inspected the vehicle and assessed loss but due to non compliance of O.Ps. instruction, O.Ps. repudiated the claim. Complainant approached before this Forum for getting redressal of his claim.

                                                                                                                                                      Contd……………P/2

 

 

                                                                                       ( 2 )

O.Ps. contested the case by filing written version denying the allegations of complainant stating inter alia, that  the complainant has no reasons to file this case against this O.P., complainant did not reply the letter’s  send by O.Ps. Ops. surveyor assessed loss of Rs.1,41,100/-, but due  to laches of complainant O.Ps. did not process the claim, O.Ps have no deficiency of service, O.Ps. pray for dismissl of the case.                                                                                                             

                             Decision with Reasons :

We carefully perused the complaint, written objection, evidence and documents. Fact of the case that vehicle in question met with an accident and dashed with road side tree for  which the front portion of the vehicle damaged.  Complainant intimated the incident to the concern P.S. and subsequently to the Ops. Ops. Surveyor assessed loss of damage and submitted report but O.Ps. did not process the claim due to non compliance of O.Ps. query by the complainant as such O.Ps. repudiated the claim.

Admitted fact that insured vehicle was damaged due to accident, matter of accident was intimated to the concern police station. Complainant paid Rs.2,32,000/- to the repairing centre i.e. owner of Maa Kali Body Builders with proper receipt but it is not proved in evidence. Complainant to prove his case, filed examination in chief and tendered himself as witness of PW-I and file some documents which marked (Exhibit 1 to 8).  Complainant was cross-examined  by O.Ps. and in cross examination complainant denies the receipt of letters in respect of query and O.Ps. also fail to prove it.

From documents we find that surveyor assessed loss of the damaged vehicle Rs.1,41,000/- after inspection of the repaired portion of the damaged vehicle, said surveyor did not mentioned any painting charges of the repaired portion of the damaged vehicle in question. Complainant paid  total cost of repairing to the vehicle repairing centre including painting charges. It is very common practice that a portion of damage repairing there is painting is necessary and in this case front portion including dash board,  cabin of the vehicle all are repaired by way of denting . So in such case painting is necessary and such painting has been done by the repairing centre and said cost should be included with amount assessed by surveyor.  It appears that no separate charge of painting has been mentioned in the bill of repairing centre. We allowed Rs.10,000/- for painting charges besides the amount assessed by surveyor. We find that O.Ps. only flimsy ground did not process the claim and harassed the complainant for which complainant has to suffer mental  pain and financial loss. O.Ps. are negligent and deficient in service.

                                                                                                                                         Contd……………P/3                                                             

 

                                                                                               ( 3 )

In view of the discussions herein above we find complainant is entitled to get an order with cost against O.Ps.      

Thus the complaint succeeds.                                  

                                     Hence, it is,

                                                            Ordered 

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

                 O.Ps. are directed to pay Rs.1,51,000/- as repairing cost, to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental pain and to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of order.

                 Failure to comply O.Ps. shall be liable to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as penal cost to be paid to the Legal Aid Fund of this Forum till realization of full payment.                   

             Dictated and Corrected by me                

 

 

                               Member                                                                               President

                                                                                                                       District Forum

                                                                                                                    Paschim Medinipur