DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 397 of  2022

 

Sri Bikram Sinha,

S/O- Late Krishnamohan Sinha,

Manipuri Para, Kalkalia, 

P.S. Bisalgarh,

Sipahijala District, Tripura. …........Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. The Branch Manager,

 

2. Mr. Sayantan Dey,

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the O.P. No.1 & 2 : Sri Sampad Choudhury,

 

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

1. Bikram Sinha here-in-after called as the “Complainant” has filed this Complaint against the O.Ps alleging deficiency in service as his vehicle No-TR-07-C -0270 met with an accident at Khayerpur on 29.08.2022 having valid Policy of Insurance with the O.Ps for the period 11.10.2021 to 10.10.2022.

1.2 The complainant being the C.R.P.F. Jawan posted in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh appointed Satyajit Sinha as his power of attorney to look after the vehicle. 

1.3 After the accident the vehicle was garaged in the Maruti servicing centre and estimate of Rs.3,53,340/- was raised for repairing the damaged vehicle but the O.P. Insurance company repudiated the claim vide letter dated 24.09.2022 on the ground of ''No claim''. Hence, this complaint claiming compensation.

 

2. The O.P. No.1 and 2 submitted written objection alleging inter alia that the vehicle was sold to Satyajit Singha without any intimation to the O.P. Insurance company and registration of the vehicle was also not changed which is violation of policy of insurance. As such the O.Ps are not duty bound to indemnify the complainant.

2.1 Vide order dated 27.01.2023 the name of O.P. No.3 was struck off as the O.P. No.3 is not a necessary party.

 

3. The complainant submitted evidence on affidavit along with documents i.e., the Policy of Insurance, Driving License of Partha @ Monoj Singha who had been driving the vehicle at the time of accident and the estimate for repairing the vehicle.

3.1 The O.P. No.1 and 2 also submitted evidence on affidavit along with a copy of alleged declaration of Satyajit Singha that he purchased the vehicle from the complainant Bikram Sinha in the month of June, 2021.

 

4. Hearing argument the following points emerged for discussion and decision:-

 

5. Both the points are taken up together for discussion and decision.

5.1 The admitted fact in this case is that the vehicle was duly insured with the O.P. Insurance company and that the vehicle met with a road traffic accident on 29.08.2022. The Complainant has submitted valid driving license of Manoj Kr. Singha @ Partha who had been driving the vehicle at the time of accident. From the charge sheet submitted by the Police in the last paragraph of page- 2 it is mentioned that Partha, the driver of the vehicle  is also known as Manoj. We find no force behind the submission of the Learned Counsel of the O.P. Insurance company that the vehicle was transferred to Satyajit Singha. One photocopy of unanimous declaration of Satyajit Singha allegedly given to the surveyor of the Insurance company that in the month of June, 2021 Bikram Sinha sold the vehicle to Satyajit Singha does not prove such sale as Satyajit Singha has not been examined as a witness in this case and no transfer of vehicle has been reported either to the vehicle Department or to the O.P. Insurance company. U/S 2(30) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 'Owner' means the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered. As such on the date of alleged accident the offending vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant,  Bikram Sinha and the vehicle was duly insured with the O.P. Insurance company in the name of the complainant, Bikram Sinha.

5.2 The Servicing Centre i.e., Jain Udyog has submitted a total estimate of Rs.3,53,340/- including supplementary estimate. From the estimate we find that 124 nos. of items have been mentioned including  painting of the vehicle. It is a fact that as per GR -9 of Indian Motor Tarrif for replacement of parts for partial loss claim rubber items, plastic parts, tires etc. the depreciation of 50% of the total cost of the new parts shall be deducted. Similarly 30% depreciation is allowed in case of fibre glass components and in case of depreciation for all other parts including wooden parts is to be as per the schedule mentioned in GR – 9 basing on duration of vehicle. We consider the fact that the vehicle was purchased in the year, 2019 and it met with accident in the month of August, 2022 and considering huge number of items which were required to repair the vehicle, we allow flat depreciation of 25% on all items in average. Therefore, 25% of Rs.3,53,340/- is Rs. 88,335/- which is liable to be deducted from the total amount of Rs.3,53,340/- minus Rs.88,335/- equals to Rs.2,65,005/- which the complainant is entitled however, without further compensation.

6. Both the points are decided accordingly.

7. In the result, it is ordered that the O.P. Insurance company particularly the O.P. No.1 shall pay this amount of Rs.2,65,005/- to the complainant  with in 30 days from today, otherwise this amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% P.A. from today till the date of actual payment. 

8. The case stands disposed off. Supply a copy of this Final Order free of cost to the complainant and the Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.