Date of filing:-17/11/2016.
Date of Order:-25/07/2018
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 46 of 2016.
Bishnu Kumar Patwari, S/o. Nanda Kishor Patwari, aged about 54(fifty four) years, Occupation – Bussiness, C/o. Yash Enterprises,1st floor, Patwari House, Hospital Road, Po/Ps/Dist-Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
Vrs.
Branch Manager, National Insurance Co Ltd, Canal Avenue, Bargarh, Po/ Ps/ Dist. –Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri P.K.Sharma, Advocate with others Advocates.
For the Opposite Party :- Sri S.K.Mahapatra, Advocate.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.25/07/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief facts of the case;-
In pursuance of the provision U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 the Complainant has preferred to file the case with an allegation of deficiencies in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party on the ground envisaged hereunder, That the Complainant has insured his Car bearing Regd No-OR-15-S-6445 vide Policy No-163403/31/13/6100001103 with the Opposite Party and that during the subsistence of the validity period of insurance the said car met with an accident but as there was no casualty he has not filed any F.I.R but has informed about the same to the Opposite Party with due claim form and got repaired his said car in the authorized service center namely Calcutta Auto Works Shop and has obtained an estimate bill amounting to Rs.1,14,900/-(Rupees one lakh fourteen thousand nine hundred)only Dt.30.06.2014 and also obtained a final repair bill from the Sunrise Trading Co, Kolkatta vide bill No-14830 Dt. 23.07.2014 amounting to Rs.1,04,160/-(Rupees one lakh four thousand one hundred sixty)only and has produced before the Opposite Party for a total amount of Rs.1,18,990/-(Rupees one lakh eighteen thousand nine hundred ninety)only along with the claim form which was registered as claim No.163403/31/14/6190000015 by the Opposite Party .
The further case of the Complainant is that against his aforesaid claim after about ten months of the accident the Opposite Party has offered an amount of Rs.3,260/-(Rupees three thousand two hundred sixty)only against his claim of Rs.1,18,990/-(Rupees one lakh eighteen thousand)only which as per him amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiencies of service on his part for such acts of the Opposite Party, the Complainant has to undergo heavy mental pressure and ultimately served him with a pleader notice but to no effect, thus has filed the present case claiming an amount of Rs.1,18,990/-(Rupees one lakh eighteen thousand nine hundred ninety)only against the O.D .claim and Rs.40,000/-(Rupees fourteen)only against mental agony and Rs 40,000/-(Rupees fourteen)only towards his loss of business, in total amounting to Rs. 1,98,990/-(Rupees one lakh ninety eight thousand nine hundred ninety)only with interest @ 12% per annum. And in support of his case the Complainant has relied on the following documents,
Copy of the estimate bill issued by the Calcutta Auto Works, Bargarh Dt.30.06.2014 as Annexure - I.
Copy of the bill issued by the Calcutta Auto Works, Bargarh Dt. 23.07.2014 for Rs.14,830/-(Rupees fourteen thousand eight hundred thirty) as Annexture-II.
Copy of bill issued by Sunrise Trading Co, Kolkatta of Rs.1,04,160/-(Rupees one lakh four thousand one hundred sixty)only as Annexure-III.
Copy of the letter Dt.10.03.2015 to the Complainant as Annexure -IV.
Copy of the Letter Dt.30.03.2015 to the Complainant as Annexure -V.
Copy of Pleader Notice with Regd. Ad Dt.16.04.2014 with receipt by the Opposite Party as Annexure-VI.
Copy of the insurance of the motor vehicle along with registration certificate and driving License as Annexure -VII.
Perused the Complaint, the documents and on hearing the Advocate for the Complainant the case was admitted and notice was served on the Opposite Party and in response appeared before the Forum and filed his version.
On perusal of the version of the Opposite Party, it has admitted the averment made by the Complainant to have insured the vehicle in question with their company also it has admitted to the extent of the accident at the same time has denied to have receive the information of the accident immediately and also has admitted to have deputed one surveyor to inspect the vehicle concerned and report and also has deputed one loss assessor to estimate the loss caused to the vehicle due to the accident. But the Opposite Party has denied the claim of the Complainant on the ground that the insurance policy is agreed upon by the parties on the basis of the terms and condition of the policy as envisaged in the policy bond, and as per the terms and condition of the policy they are not supposed to indemnify the consequential damage caused to the vehicle but are bound by the assessment made by their survey report. And as such it has stated in it’s version that as per the report of the surveyor the accident has caused a small cut on the oil sump and resulting to the forceful running of the vehicle after the cut in the oil sump has been caused which is a violative to the term and condition of the policy and it is coming under their exclusion clause as it is coming under the consequential loss hence is not payable by them and also has stated to have repeatedly written letters to the insured to submit the required documents to settle the claim but he did not respond to that hence the repudiation from their end and has justified their repudiation as they have offered the actual amount of the claim assessed by the surveyor and loss assessor to which the insurer has denied to accept.
On perusal of the complaint the version filed by the Opposite Party and their respective documents and on hearing the counsels for the parties we are of the view that the following points are to be determined for proper adjudication of the case .
Whether there is deficiencies in giving service or unfair practice on the part of the Opposite Party ?
Whether the Complainant is entitled to the claim as sought for by him ?
Firstly while taking the points as to whether the Opposite Party is deficient in giving service or acted upon unfair trade practice we have to put reliance on the documents and the arguments both in writing and the oral submission as such it reveals from such materials as during the course of final hearing of the case the learned advocate for the Complainant vehemently argued and pressed in submitting that the Opposite Party has not properly assessed the loss sustained to the vehicle and also taken more than 10(ten) months in settling the claim with a meager amount which is an arbitrary one hence is not acceptable and claimed to have deficient in providing proper service to the Complainant and in support of his case he has submitted some documents vide Annexure-I to VII coupled with a notes of arguments with references of some citation of some higher Forum in support of his claim. On the contrary the learned counsel for the Opposite Party also advanced his arguments along with a voluminous written notes of arguments with giving much emphasis on the terms and condition as agreed by the parties at the time of commencement of the policy along with the relevant provision of law of contact guiding the policy condition besides the facts and circumstances of the case and the cause of their repudiation, that the date and time of accident of the vehicle has not been mentioned by the insurer nor the matter of accident was communicated to the nearby police station which is at distance of ½ K.m. from the alleged spot further he has submitted that the matter of accident was reported to the Opposite Party in a late stage but in spite of that they have taken immediate step by appointing an authorized surveyor and a loss assessor to verify and to estimate the vehicle but by then the vehicle was already transferred to the repairing unit, and that even then the surveyor examined the vehicle in presence of the Complainant which has been admitted by the Complainant in his petition it’self and estimated the loss by another person i.e. the loss assessor and have rightly assessed and offer was made to the Complainant but he did not respond to their offer which made them bound to repudiate the claim and hence his further submission is that since they have acted upon their duty immediately after getting information and basing on the physical assessment of the damage and the loss caused to the vehicle have estimated the amount and basing on that the Opposite Party has offered him to accept the amount of Rs.3,300/-(Rupees three thousand three hundred)only and hence there is no deficiencies on their part and to substantiate his such arguments has relied on the policy terms and condition. Also it reveals from the evidence adduced by the Complainant by way of an affidavit filed by the Complainant it is found that the Complainant has admitted in his cross examination that he does not know if the loss caused to the Vehicle due to the accident as he has mentioned in his Complaint, secondly he has admitted in his cross examination that he has not informed about the accident to the Opposite Party nor to the Police before taking the same to the garage for repair, also he has admitted that the engine has seized due the leakage of oil, so on vivid examination of the materials available in the record and Having gone through the submission of both the Parties through their Advocates and scrutinizing the Documents of both the parties with utmost care we observed that the report of the Surveyor and the Loss assessor can’t be brushed aside as the total episode of the accident and the repair made thereafter is very much cogent having being given proper opportunity to the Complainant at the time of inspection and thereafter too, And since we did not find any ambiguity in the case we did not prefer to go much details in to the citation filed on behalf of the Complainant and found that the Complainant has measurably failed to substantiate his case, hence in our unanimous view the Opposite party is not deficient in giving service to the Complainant as such it is answered in favor of the Opposite Party .
Secondly while dealing with the point as to whether the Complainant is entitled to the claim as sought for by him, as we have already discussed the case in our foregoing paragraph in detail and has opined in favor of the Opposite Party it is obvious upon to answer hereto in favor of the Opposite Party, hence the complaint against the Opposite Party is dismissed being devoid of merit.
Accordingly the case against the Opposite Party is dismissed and the same is disposed off in the open Forum to-day i.e. on Dt.25/07/2018.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree,
( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (W)
