IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC 75/2016.
Date of Filing: 05.05.2016. Date of Final Order: 29.06.2017.
Complainant: Sefali Huda, W/O Md. Anarul Hoque, 2, K.N. Road(Mental Hospital Quarter),
P.O. Berhampore, P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742101.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Branch Manager, New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Berhampore Division,
37A,R. N. Tagore Road(1st Floor), P.O. Berhampore, P.S. Berhampore,
Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742101.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya …………………. President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty ………………….. Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya, Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant U/S 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for payment of insurance claim of Rs.106616/- towards repairing cost of damaged insured vehicle due to accident and for compensation of Rs.25,000/-for mental pain and against harassment.
The complaint case, in brief, is that the complainant’s insured Bolero Plus BSII (Ambulance) vide registration No. WB 57A 2421 met with an accident on 27.10.2015 at Panchgram under Nabagram P.S. and the vehicle was damaged badly and immediate thereafter the complainant informed the OP-Insurance Co about the accident and the appointed Surveyor of the OP inspected the damaged vehicle due to accident and permitted the complainant to repair the same in a garage and then the complainant took the vehicle to garage for repair. The complainant paid the towing charges, repairing charges the cost of the spare parts of the vehicle from his fund. The complainant spent sum of Rs.1, 06,616/-only for entire repairing charges and towing charges. After repairing the vehicle the complainant claimed the amount from the Insurance Company against the above mentioned insurance policy. But by a letter dated 18.04.16 the Opposite Party repudiated the claim on a baseless ground. The complainant claimed that amount only which he has spent for repairing the vehicle. There was no forgery. There is a deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. . Hence, the instant complaint case.
The written version filed by OP-Insurance Co., in brief, is that the engaged Investigator of the OP verified the cash Memo No. 827 dt. 02.12.15 of Rs.30, 770 from K.S. Motors of regarding purchase of parts and found that the owner of K.S. Motor has denied the sale of the same to the insured complainant and on 18.9.16 he admitted the same in writing with seal of K.S. Motor Parts that the said cash Memo is fictitious. The assessment of loss by appointed Surveyor of OP is Rs.54, 550/-(35000 +19550). If the amount in dispute for Rs.30, 770/- vide Cash Memo No. 827 dt. 2.12.2015 is deducted from the assessment of loss, the absolute liability of Insurance Co will come to Rs.23, 780/-. The claim of the complainant for Rs.1, 31,616/- is absolutely baseless. The OP has no deficiency in service. Due to suppression of facts and took the help counterfeit cash Memo the company repudiated the entire claim. The claim of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the instant written version.
Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points have been raised for the disposal of the case.
Points for Consideration.
- Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and in law?
- Whether the complainant has any cause of action to initiate the present case?
- Whether the case is barred by law of limitation?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
- To other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with Reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 5.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The instant complaint is for payment of insurance claim of Rs.106616/- towards repairing cost of damaged insured vehicle due to accident and for compensation of Rs.25, 000/-for mental pain and against harassment.
The complainant’s case is that the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant only for repairing cost of the damaged insured vehicle met with an accident by letter dt.18.04.16 on baseless ground. There was no forgery.
On the other hand the OP’s case is that the Cash Memo No.827 dt. 02.12.2015 of K.S. Motor is fictitious. The owner of K.S. Motor in writing has stated that no such parts were supplied to the complainant but Cash Memo No. 827 dt. 02.12.15 was issued by them.
But, the said owner of K.S. Motor as well as maker of the statement in writing on 28.03.16 has not been examined and cross-examined on dock where the OP’s main case as to fictitious cash memo has solely relied upon the impugned statement of the owner of K.S. Motor.
To prove the case the complainant herself has adduced evidence on affidavit and has also filed the relevant documents in support of her claim.
In this case the OP No.1 Insurance Co. has filed W/V along with relevant documents including the surveyor’s report as to assessment of loss of Rs.35,000/- plus total labour cost as Rs.19550/- and statement of owner of K.S. Motors and the alleged fictitious cash memo No. 827 dt. 2.12.15 of Rs.30, 770/-.
In this case the OP No.1 Insurance Co has not examined the maker of the statement as to fictitious cash memo given any opportunity of cross-examination by the complainant.
Further, it appears from the surveyor’s report regarding assessment of loss showing the damaged parts for the accident found during survey and some of those parts tally with the items mentioned in the alleged factitious cash memo.
In this case the averment of OP-Insurance Co in its written version and also in the letter dt. 18.4.16 The OP-Insurance Company has repudiated the entire claim of the complainant on the ground that as the complainant has suppressed the fact and took the help of counterfeit cash Memo, the OP-Insurance Co is not in a position to entertain the entire claim and they have no other alternative but to close the file as “No Claim”.
The alleged fictitious cash Memo No. 827 for Rs.30, 770/- being not proved categorically and some parts mentioned in the alleged cash Memo No. 827 being tallied with the surveyor’s report appointed by OP No.1-Insurance Co which is much below the claim amount of the complainant we are of view that the complainant is entitled to get claim of Rs.54550/- as per surveyor’s report along with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of this case and we are not in agreement with the argument advanced by ld. lawyer for the OP-Insurance Co. for deduction of Rs.30770 from the assessed loss of Rs.54550/- as the alleged cash memo has not been proved as fictitious categorically.
Considering the above discussions as a whole we find that all the points are disposed in favour of the complainant in part and as such the complainant is entitled to get insurance claim of Rs.54550/- for the damage of the insured vehicle according to the coverage along interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of this case.
According to the settled principle, if interest is allowed, the compensation will not be allowed further. As such, in this case the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation further as prayed for, as interest is allowed in the order in her favour.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 75/2016 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest in part.
The complainant is entitled to get insurance claim of Rs.54550/- for the damage insured vehicle according to the coverage along with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of this case.
The OP –Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.54550/- to the complainant for the damage of the insured vehicle according to the coverage along interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of this case within 60 days from the date of this order.
In default the OP is to pay Rs.50/- per day’s delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
