West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/202/2016

Saiyed Afjal Hossain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, ICICI General Lombard Insurance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Debasish De

28 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and

Sagarika Sarkar, Member

   

Complaint Case No.202/2016

 

Saiyed Afjal Hossain, S/o-Saiyed Mozammal Hossain, Saiyedpur,

P.O.-Saiyedpur & P.S.-Salboni,

Dist-Paschim Medinipur…..….………Complainant

Versus

ICICI General Lombard Insurance Ltd., 2^nd Floor, M.S. Tower,

 O.T. Road, P.O.-Inda & P.S.-Kharagpur(T), District Paschim               

                          Medinipur.………....…Opposite. Party.

 

 For the Complainant:  Mr. Debasish De, Advocate.

 For the O.P.             :      

 

Decided on: - 28/04/2017

                               

ORDER

                         Sagarika Sarkar, Member – The instant petition of complaint is filed u/s-12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the above mentioned  O.P.

                  Case of the complainant, in brief, is that he, for earning his livelihood, purchased the vehicle bearing registration n.WB-33B-5867, vehicle type-TATA2518 (Truck), chassis no.MAT448035C2F13685,  engine no.2163267845, under hire purchase agreement with financial assistance of TATA Motors Finance Ltd. Vide contract no.50009949651/F & F/LSA/1/02/02/2017.  It is further stated by the complainant that the said vehicle was insured by the above mentioned O.P-Insurance

Contd………..P/2

                                                                                  

 

                                            ( 2 )

Co. vide policy no.3003/72653025/00/000. It is also stated in the petition of complaint that the said vehicle met with an accident on 13/01/2013 at Chowkimura, P.S.-Onda, Dist-Bankura,  while the same was loaded with poultry feed. The  complainant reported the said incident to Onda P.S. and the same was numbered as MA01 dated 14/01/2013 in connection with the GDE no.  471/13 dated 14/01/2013. It is further stated that on 16/01/2013 the said vehicle was inspected by the Governmental Motor Vehicle Inspector, who after inspection issued a report that the full vehicle was damaged in the said accident. It is stated that the estimate for the repairment of the said vehicle was  done by the Mithila Body Builders by their report dated 25/01/2013 which was duly supported by M/S Dey Automobiles which  is an authorized service centre of TATA Motors and the estimated cost of the repairment was assessed as Rs.7,78,270/-. The complainant submitted his claim for disbursement of the amount as assessed by the surveyor, appointed by TATA Motors but was no effect. All on a sudden the Ld. Lawyer of O.P. sent a notice dated 12/07/2013 to the complainant, stating that as per discussion held by the complainant and the insurer during which the complainant expressed his desire to dismantle/dismount the damage vehicle. The insurance company supported the view of complaint and advised the complainant to dismantle the same. The complainant denied that any such discussion had ever taken place between him and the insurer. Subsequently the complainant had made several correspondence to the insurer requesting him to settle the claim but all went in vain.

           The complainant adduced evidence  on affidavit. He is on 21/04/2017 swearing affidavit mentioning that he is the absolute owner of the said vehicle and is entitled to get relief of his claim.

          Accordingly the complainant, by filing the present case, has prayed for direction upon the O.P.-Insurer to pay Rs.19,90,000/- towards compensation  and also to pay the cost of litigation.

         Notice was duly served upon the O.P. but he did not turn up and therefore, the present case is being proceeded exparte against the O.P. vide order being no.6 on 10/03/2017.     

Point for decisions :

 

1.Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?

Contd………..P/3

 

 

( 3 )

 

Decisions with reasons :

 

    The complainant availed the service in respect of insuring vehicle against the payment of premium and thus became the consumer under the O.P. under the provision of section 2(i)(d) of C.P. Act.  

    The cause of action occurred on 13/01/2013. Thereafter the complainant submitted his claim on 25/01/2013 to the Insurer. The insurer neither settled the claim nor did repudiate the claim which means the fate of the claim is still pending.  Therefore it is a case of continuing cause of action and thus this case is not barred by limitation.

    The complainant claimed to have availed service from the O.P.  in respect of insuring vehicle and accordingly has furnished copy of insurance policy whereas it is evident that the vehicle was under coverage of insurance provided by the O.P.-Insurer. The complainant stated that the said vehicle met with an accident on 13/01/2013. Copy of GDE dated 14/01/2013 of Onda P.S. corroborates the said averment made by the complainant. Complainant stated that the vehicle was damaged. Copy of the report issued by Governmental Motors vehicle Inspector and the report issued by the surveyor appointed by TATA Motors showed that the full vehicle was damaged and the estimated cost of repairment/replacement was assessed Rs.7,78,270/-. However it appears from the advocate letter dated 12/07/2013 served upon the complainant claiming on the basis of discussion between the complainant and the O.P.-Insurance Co. whereas no such averment has been made by the complainant to the effect that he had ever discussed with the O.P. for dismantling of the said vehicle or any parts thereof. The O.P. since did not appear, fail to file any documentary evidence in support of this claim. Copies of several correspondences have shown that he made continuous knocking on the door of the O.P.-Insurer to settle the claim.  It is evident from the letter of the Ld. Advocate that the O.P.-insurer neither settled the claim nor did repudiate the same.  This inaction on the part of the O.P. is a glearing example of the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

   The complainant should get amount as assessed by M/S-Dey Automobiles and also to get the compensation amount to be paid by the O.P. since the O.P.  did not settle the claim in time.  As per our assessment  it will be just and proper if the complainant get Rs.2,00,000/- towards  compensation. Since the O.P. compelled the complainant to file the instant case for getting his rightful claim, the O.P. is to bear the cost of litigation which as per our assessment as Rs.7,500/-.

Contd………..P/4

                                                                                

 

                                         ( 4 )

 

    In the result the petition of complaint succeeds in part.    

                            Hence, it is

                                                          ORDERED

                                                             that the consumer complaint being no.202/2016 is allowed in part exparte with cost against O.P..

             The O.P. is directed to settle the claim by disbursing  Rs.7,78,270/- in favour of the complainant within one month from the date of this order.

            The O.P. is further directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.7,500/- towards cost of litigation within aforesaid period.

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

             Dictated and Corrected by me

                     

                          Member                                                                        President

                                                                                                          District Forum

                                                                                                       Paschim Medinipur