BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSA FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 57 of 2013
Md. Azir Uddin Barbhuiya, ……………………………………………… Complainant.
-V/S-
1) Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Represented by- The Branch Manager, 5th Floor, Anil Plaza,
Beside IDBI building, Guwahati-781 005 ………………………………….. O.P. No.1
2) M/S Neveen Finance & Investment,
Tulapatty, P.O. Silchar-1
Dist. Cachar, Assam. ………………………………………………………… O.P No.2
3) Rajib Choudhury,
Surveyor & Loss Assessor,
Modan Mohan Apartment, Flat No.2/IB,
P.O. Silchar-5, Jail Road
Dist. Cachar, Assam …………………………………………………… Proforma O.P
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared :- Sri Sajal Kanti Ghosh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sri A.S. Mitra, Advocate for the O.P No.1.
Date of Evidence………………. 16-09-2014, 07-02-2015
Date of written argument……… 17-07-2015, 23-06-2016
Date of oral argument ………….. 07-04-2017
Date of judgment……………… 29-04-2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(Sri Bishnu Debnath)
- This case has been brought by Md. Azir Uddin Barbhuiya the Complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘Complainant’) being the Insured-Owner of a Truck bearing Registration No.AS-11B/7591( referred as ‘vehicle’ in the judgment) for award of compensation and Sum Assured from the Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd (referred as ‘OP No.1’) on account of damaging of the vehicle due to road accident.
- The Complainant stated inter-alia in the Complaint that his vehicle was under insurance with the OP No.1 for the period from 09-11-2010 to 08-11-2011. The Insurance Policy No. is 1505702334000966. During the aforesaid period the vehicle met accident on 11-11-2010. Accordingly, the Complainant informed the matter to the OP No.1. The OP No.1 appointed Shri Rajib Chaudhury as Surveyor to survey the incidence. Thereafter, the Complainant submitted his claim for Sum assured of the vehicle on the plea that the vehicle has been damaged complately, but the OP No.1 repudiated the claim. Hence, this instant Complaint has been sumitted before this District Forum with the reliefs stated in the Complaint.
- The OP No.1 submitted W/S stating inter-alia that the Insured/ Complainant did not co-opreate with the Surveyor (the OP No.3) during the survey and no reliable bills for repairing the vehicle submitted to the OP No.3, for which the claim has been repudiated.
- The OP No.2 M/S Naveen Finance & Investment of Tulapatty, Silchar and the OP No.3 did not contest the case. Anyhow, the Complainant adduced evidence and exhibited as many as 9 (nine) sets of documents including cash memos for repairing the vehicle and MVI report regarding description of damage vehicle as per requisition of the Police. The OP No.1 also examined the Legal Manager Shri Samral Baruah but did not exhibit any document.
- Heard argument of the learned Advocate of the OP No.1 and perused the Written Argument of both sides Counsels. I have also perused the evidence on record including all exhibited documents.
- In this case in view of the Complaint, W/S and evidence on record it is concluded that what is the amount of money the Complainant insured toward repairing the vehicle is the crux point to determine because the OP No.1 is ready to pay the repairing expenditure of the vehicle.
- It is admitted fact that the vehicle was under insurance with the OP No.1 and said vehicle met accident on the road. The Complainant also deposed to establish the fact of accident and total damage of the vehicle. Accordingly, he exhibited not only a Police Report in respect of the accident of the vehicle, vide Ext.8 but also exhibited the MVI Report in connection with the damage of the vehicle due to the accident, vide Ext.9. Both the above documents are taken into consideration as reliable. So, it is concluded that the vehicle was needed repairing to run on the road.
- The accident took place on 11-11-2010 at about 1:05 A.M. as per Ext.8 but from the deposition of the Complainant it is not clear as when he sent the vehicle to Workshop for repairing. It is also not clear as how many days spent by the Motor Machanic and Builder of the Body of the vehicle for repairing of the vehicle. Of course, the Complainant exhibited Cash memos, vide Ext.4 series to say that those document are Cash memos /Bills for repairing of the vehicle. The Complainant also exhibited some estimates for repairing of the vehicle, vide Ext.5 series and claiming that Rs 2,95,691 as cost of repairing of the vehicle. In his oral evidence stated that he spent Rs11,000 toward towing charge. But no payment receipt of the said amount is exhibited except the Ext.4(5) for Rs.5,000. Nothing explained as how the Ext.4 series are linked with the Ext.5 series. That is why, the OP No.1 stated that loss could not be assessed because the Complainant could not produce all Bills for repairing of the vehicle to the Surveyor.
- However, from the evidence on record and from the Written Argument of the OP No.1, it is clear that the OP No.1 is ready to met the claim on the basis of actual cash memos/bill of repairing of the vehicle.
- On careful scrutiny of the exhibited documents, we find the Ext.4 series cash memos are documentary proof of expenditure of repairing of the vehicle because Ext.4 series are remain unrebuttable in the evidence on record. The Ext.5 series of documents are though remain unrebuttable in the evidence on record but can not be treated as payment receipts for repairing of the vehicle because the Complainant exhibited the Ext.5 series as Estimate for repairing of the vehicle.
- As per our prudent mind the estimates are not the proof of actual expenditure because Estimates are based on presumption and on technical knowledge as pre-repairing works for convenient of the consumer/owner of the vehicle for bearing the volumes of monetary burden at the relevant time of repairing of the vehicle. Of course, the actual expenditure may differ the Estimated cost in case to case.
- Thus, we have taken in to consideration the Ext.4 series only to determine the repairing expenditure of the vehicle including towing charge. Thus, on calculation we found total expenditure on the basis of actual cash memos as Rs 85,130 (Rupees Eighty Five Thousand One Hundred Thirty) only. So far as the plea of expenditure of Rs 11,000 toward towing charge, we do not find any documentary proof in the record to support the oral evidence except the Ext.4(5). That is why, the plea of the Complainant in respect of payment of Rs 11,000 toward towing charge is not taken into consideration. Rather as per Ext.4(5) towing charge is considered Rs 5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand) only. The said amount has been included in the above calculated amount of Rs 85,130.
- Thus, the OP No.1 is liable to pay repairing expenditure of Rs 85,130 (Rupees Eighty Five Thousand One Hundred Thirty) only to the Complainant along with cost of the proceeding of Rs 10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand) only within 45(Forty Five) days from today. In default, the OP No.1 is to pay interest at rate of 10% per annum with effect from the 46th (Forty Sixth) day till realization of the full awarded amount.
- Supply free certified copy of Judgment to the parties of this litigation. With the above order this case is disposed of on contest. Given under hand and seal of the District Forum on this the 29th day of April, 2017.
