This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant purchased a Motor Car Insurance Policy bearing No.311504/31/2012/1060 issued by the OP on 30-09-2011 against the vehicle being Registration No.WB02K3454 and for that purpose a premium of Rs.11,321/- was paid to the OP.

          Subsequently, the said insured car met an accident on 15-04-2012 and claim was lodged with the OP and it was placed in the authorized workshop M/s. Longia Motors Pvt. Ltd. and submitted an estimate cost for repairing of damaged car including supplementary estimate of Rs.1,71,679/- vide their estimates dated 16-04-2012 and 15-05-2012 and complainant lodged a claim by filing original estimate for repairing the car to the OP for settlement of the claim but in the meantime repairing cost was increasing day by day so, complainant had requested the OP to settle the claim on constructive total loss basis as per policy and in the policy document it is clearly mentioned that imposition of depreciation on replaced parts on repair basis based on the age of the vehicle is not applicable on the CTL claims.  But the OP arbitrarily not accepted the claim but directed that the complainant should repair the vehicle by spending repairing cost and, thereafter, on submission of the final receipt of the repairing and on survey and inspection the same shall be settled.  Fact remains the damaged car is kept at the garage but OP has not approved the settlement on cashless basis despite the surveyor’s findings without any reason and arbitrarily and so the OP failed to discharge its obligation under the contract entered into while collecting a hefty premium of Rs.11,321/- for the cover they issued, thereby OP has deprived the complainant for getting the benefit of the policy and fact remains for the adamant attitude of the OP the complainant’s damaged car is lying in the garage of the said M/s. Longia Motors Pvt. Ltd. from 16-04-2012 for which complainant is paying Rs.5,000/- per month for garage rent.

          Fact remains complainant repeatedly informed the OP on 10-06-2013, 29-07-2013, 16-09-2013 and 08-11-2013 expressing the inability to repair the car by incurring such huge amount due to financial constraints and requested for settlement of the long pending claim on salvage loss basis immediately.  But the complainant’s letter was not replied b the OP and by that means OP has been harassing the complainant by keeping the claim for years together and for which for proper justice and for proper redressal complainant has filed this complaint for deficiency, negligency and for adopting unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

          On the other hand, insurance company by filing written version has submitted that in Section 1-Loss or Damage to the vehicle insured, the policy terms and conditions clearly states that rate of depreciation for all other parts including wooden parts will be as per the following schedule and in the schedule age of vehicle exceeding 10 years percentage of depreciation is mentioned as 50%.  Sao, it is thereby clearly expressed that in case of loss in vehicle exceeding 10 years of age depreciation of 50% will be deducted from the amount of loss and/or cost of retrieval/repair.  Thus in this case the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.2,25,000/- and according to the version of the complainant, the repairing charge of the vehicle would be Rs.1,71,679/- and from this amount depreciation of 50% is to be deducted since the vehicle is more that 10 years old and thus the amount comes to Rs.85,805-50 and after deducting salvage value of Rs.2,034/- (approx) and policy excess Rs.1,000/- the amount comes to Rs.82,805-50 and according to the terms and condition of the policy if the above mentioned amount exceeds 75% of the IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.1,68,750/- and then the claim would have been settled in CTL basis.  But in this case Rs.82,805-50 is a much lesser value than Rs.1,68,750/- and as such it does not exceed 75% of the IDV and thus the claim of the complainant cannot be settled in CTL basis.  Further, it is submitted that OP informed to the complainant through letter dated 12-03-2013 that if the complainant did not submit final bill, cash memos, salvages and the repaired vehicle for re-inspection within 7 days from the receipt of the letter it will be presumed that the complainant is not interested for settlement of claim and complainant will also appreciate that no claim can be kept pending for unending period and so it will be closed treating the file as no claim.  Thus the OP states that the delay in settling the claim of the complainant was not on the part of the OP but the delay was made by the complainant himself.  Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the OP and it is pertinent to mention here that company may its own option repair, reinstate or replace the vehicle or part thereof and/or its accessories or may pay in cash the amount of the loss or damage and the liability of the company shall not exceed Rs.82,805/- and for long stay in the said garage of the said damage vehicle complainant is practically had filed this case, he did not take any such step and he also did not take any such step to file certificate of completion of repairing and final bill for repairing etc. to the OP as yet and for which the OP is unable to settle the claim as lodged by the complainant and in the present case complainant is at fault and for his fault the claim has not yet been settled and for which the present complaint should be dismissed.

Decision with Reasons

On proper consideration of the entire complaint, written version including the document filed by the complainant it is clear that complainant is the owner in respect of the vehicle No.WB 02 K 3454 and no doubt it was insured under the OP for the period from 30-09-20112 to midnight of 29-09-2012 and it is also undisputed fact that complainant’s car met a major accident on 15-04-2012 at about 10-30 p.m. near Mudiali under Tollygunge P.S. Kolkata and damaged car was lying in the Longia Motors Pvt. Ltd. at Kolkata and no doubt said fact was reported to the Branch Manager of the OP on 18-04-2012 by the complainant and that was received by the OP.  It is also fact that complainant filed estimate copy of bill for repairing and truth is that the said vehicle has not yet been repaired by the complainant and final bill including other papers has not been filed by the complainant to the OP.  Truth is that complainant prayed for constructive total loss claim on 25-05-2012 to the Branch Manager which was received by the OP’s office.  Fact remains that preliminary survey was made and Ashoke Kumar Palit already submitted preliminary report dated 08-08-2012 and from the said report it is clear that repairing cost would be to the tune of Rs,                       out of Rs.1,55,000/- so, complainant’s liability will be around Rs.82,000/- and as because the total cost of repairing is less than Rs.75,000/- of IDV OP regretted to consider the claim on CTL basis as demanded by the complainant and that was reported to the complainant by the OP vide letter dated 13-07-2012.  Fact remains on 30-07-2012 complainant submitted a prayer for releasing the said amount including repair charge of Rs.1,55,000/- and also Rs.1,500/- as towing charge of the damaged car.  But truth is that complainant has not submitted final bill of repairing and fact remains without final repairing bill of the same and without further investigation by the loss assessor and expert automobile engineer the claim cannot be settled.  Truth is that complainant has not yet repaired the said vehicle but it is still kept in the garage without any repairing by the complainant.  Fact remains complainant has claimed the estimated repair cost in advance but as per policy in advance no payment can be made.

          Fact remains year of manufacturing of the said vehicle is 1999 whereas the accident took place on 15-04-2012.  So, considering that fact it is clear that the accident took place after lapse of 12 years more from the date of manufacturing so, as per schedule of depreciation fixing the IDV of the vehicle the assessment of loss as made by the OP is quite correct because total sum of Rs.1,55,000/- as per estimated repair cost is assessed after deducting 50% as per said schedule of depreciation of the vehicle.  So, it is found that the estimation of the OP in respect of Rs.82,805-50 is quite correct and OP has specifically mentioned that they are ready to release the amount but complainant must have to produce the final bill of repairing cost, fitment certificate that the said car has been completely repaired but those papers have not been submitted by the complainant and complainant has admitted before this Forum that it is impossible to repair the same without any help of other in respect of the fund so, he is claiming that amount for repairing and if it is released by the OP he would be able to repair it.  No doubt we have realized that the complainant wants that amount as settled by OP in advance but as per provision of law and including the terms and condition of the policy complainant is not entitled to get said amount of Rs.82,805-50 in advance without submitting repairing bill including the certificate of fitness of the vehicle so, considering that fact we have gathered that the act on the part of the OP is not at all arbitrary, illegal and fact remains complainant has not repaired the said vehicle as yet for some purpose but complainant must have to complete repairing work, procure completion certificate of repairing from the garage owner and thereafter, submit it to the OP and invariably after that OP shall have to appoint further surveyor to estimate of actual repairing cost etc. and thereafter, OP shall release the fund but not before that and regarding depreciation we have already decided in the previous paras.  We are convinced that OP correctly deducted out of total estimated repairing cost and in view of the above fact we are convinced to hold that there is no fault, negligence, deficiency or any sort of arbitrary act on the part of the OP for not settling the claim but the complainant as a greedy consumer wants to get the settled amount in advance but that cannot be allowed so, complainant’s present complaint is completely premature and in the eye of law is not tenable and such sort of complaint should not be entertained by any Forum because complainant is found a greedy consumer who wants to receive the settle amount for repairing without repairing the vehicle and, in fact, after receipt of the said amount he shall have to sell the vehicle and that is his intention.  So, in the above circumstances, the complaint bears no merit according to law.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is dismissed with a cost of Rs.2,000/- against the OPs.

          Complainant is directed to pay the said cost to the OP within 15 days from the date of this order.

          Complainant is directed to submit final bill of repair receiving certificate of fitness of the said vehicle to the OP against the claim application so that the OP may dispose of the matter and if it is not filed by the complainant within two month from the date of this order invariably the settlement claim shall be treated as closed.