West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/34/2011

Sri Satyajit Sar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jan 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.34/2011                                                         Date of disposal: 29/01/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.                                                        

                                                      MEMBER : 

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. S. B Das, Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. A.Chakraborty, Advocate.                                                                           

 

             Sri Satyajit Sar, S/O Sri Panchanan Sar of Vill. Jharnadanga, Rangamati,                                         

             opposite to Law College, P.O. Vidyasager University, P.S. Kotwali,

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

                                                              Vs.

1. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, O.T Road, Inda, Kharagpur, P.O. Kharagpur, P.S. KGP (T), Dist. Paschim Medinipur
2. MAGMA FINCORP LIMITED (Formerly known as Magma Shrachi Finance Limited) having its Branch Office at Kharagpur, O.T. Road Inda, P.O.- Kharagpur, P.S. KGP (T), Dist-Paschim Medinipur.………………………………………….Ops.

 

           Case of the complainant Sri Satyajit Sar, in short, is that his Maruti Van bearing registration No.WB-34K/4915 was damaged due to road accident took place on 16/08/09.  In this connection, G.D entry was made being its no.793/2009 dated 15/09/09 of Kotwali Police Station within the valid period of Insurance policy.  The accident report was made before the Op-Insurance Company wherefrom a surveyor was appointed for assessing the extent of damage.  According to instruction of the surveyor the complainant has repaired the damaged vehicle at a total cost of 54,000/- (Fifty four thousand) only.  The complainant thereafter claims the repairing cost from the Op-Insurance Company.  But despite repeated request nothing favourable action has been done by them.  Stating the case the complainant prayed for repairing cost of the damage vehicle and sum of 40,000/- (Forty thousand) only for deficiency of service against the Op-Insurance Company with litigation cost of 6,000/- (Six thousand) only.

            The Op-Reliance General Insurance Company contested the case by filing written objection challenging that there is no deficiency of service and as such the case is not maintainable.

Contd………………..P/2

                                                                 

 

- ( 2 )-

             The alleged incident of damage of the vehicle is false and the same does not cover the insurance period.

             The date of accident as claimed by the complainant has not been mentioned in the petition of complaint.  The damaged vehicle may have been repaired intentionally in a road side garage.  Thus, the claim of the complainant should be rejected.   

            Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant against the op Insurance Company?
2. Whether the vehicle was damaged and needed for repairing work?
3. If the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?

 

Decision with reasons:

Issue Nos.1 to 3:

            All the issues are taken up together for discussion.  It is argued by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant that there is no dispute as regard to the validity of the policy and as well as the accidental damage of the vehicle insured under the Op-General Insurance Company.  Admittedly, there was a survey report caused by the Insurance Company with full cooperation of the complainant in respect of the repairing work costing 54,000/- (Fifty four thousand) only.  There was no denial from the end of the Op-Insurance Company with regard to the date of intimation the accidental damage took place on 18/08/2009.  While argument Ld. Advocate has referred  to the documents namely Insurance Policy, No objection certificate as regard to the change of Companies name from Magma Fincorp Limited to Magma Shrachi Finance Ltd. with effect from 19/06/07,  further changed to Magma Fincorp Ltd. with effect from 31/07/08, Registration certificate and vehicle, Complain dated 15/09/09 before the G.D Kotwali, P.S., Medinipur regarding  road accident with respect to the vehicle No.WB-34K/4915 and the Bill and Vouchers towards the cost of repairing work in respect of the said vehicle and a Letter address to the Manager Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. with postal receipt.  In conclusion, Ld. Advocate made his submission that it is a fit case supported by legal evidence in favour of the complainant and as such the prayer should be allowed against the Op-Insurance Company.

              Ld. Advocate appearing for the Op-Insurance Company in reply supported the policy in respect of the vehicle allegedly damaged.  But no specific date has been mentioned in the petition of complaint and as such the company failed to assess the degree of damage of the vehicle.  So, there is sufficient ground for holding that the Op-Insurance Company is free from deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant and as such the case should be dismissed.

Contd………………..P/3

                                                                 

 

 

- ( 3 )-                                                                                                

             We have considered the case of both parties together with the documents in Xerox Copy as produced before us.  It appears that the Op-Insurance Company issued a No objection Certificate

relating to the vehicle under the policy that the repairing work shall be borne by the complainant within a valid period of sixty days with effect from the date of the certificate dated 24/09/10.  The report made by the complainant to the I.C Kotwali P.S shows that the vehicle made a road accident on 16/08/09. 

              But no where it is found the damage due to road accident.  The surveyor’s report is not produced from either side.

              In this connection, there is no specific denial on the point of preparation of surveyor’s report on the part of Op-Insurance Company.  But the No Objection Certificate dated 24/09/10 issued by the Insurance Company leads us to believe that the complainant was given ample liberty to repair his vehicle at his own cost subject to conditions in respect of the agreement.  Nothing details as regard to the terms and conditions have been referred by the Insurance Company in any form even otherwise than the NOC dt.24/09/2010.  Under such unexplained condition relating to the repairing work as stated we are of the view that there would be no objection from the end of the Op-Insurance Company if the repairing cost as claimed by the complainant is accepted for the purpose of giving direction to the Op. for its payment as to the prayer for relief made in the complaint case.

              Following the discussing made hereinabove we are to hold and decide that the complainant has sufficient cause of action for claiming repairing cost against the Op-Insurance Company and as such the case is maintainable in favour of the complainant.  Apart from that, the claim case was admittedly accepted and dealt by the Op. But it is surprising to note that even so what is the reason for not making payment of the claimant in time when he moved before them. Thus, the claim case of the complainant is found to have taken which amounts to deficiency of service against the Op.  The issues are held in favour of the complainant. As a result, the complainant should get order in terms of his prayer.

                    Hence

                               It is ordered

                                                    that the case be and the same is allowed on contest without cost.

              The complainant do get an award of 54,000/- (Fifty four thousand) only and 6,000/- (Six thousand) only on account of deficiency of service  payable by the Op-Insurance Company within (60) sixty days from date of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled to get interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.

Dic. & Corrected by me

 

        President                                              Member                                          President

                                                                                                                        District Forum

                                         Paschim Medinipur