Orissa

Cuttak

CC/124/2018

Smt Ranjita Sethy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,New India Assurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R K Sahoo

26 Nov 2020

ORDER

 

 

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C No.124/2018

Ranjita Sethy,

W/O:Bijay Kumar Sethy,

At:Jagammathpur,P.O:Chhoti

P.S:Nikirai,Dist:Kendrapara,Odisha.                                                            .… Complainant.

 

Vrs.

1.        Sr. Branch Manager,

New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

New India Assurance Building,

87 M.G.Road,Fort Mumbai,Maharastra-400001.

 

2.        The Branch Manager,

New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

Cuttack Branch-II,Near Nishamani,

Surya Vihar,Link Road,Cuttack,Odisha.… Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:    19.12.2018

Date of Order:  26.11.2020

 

For the complainant  :    Sri R.K.Sahoo,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps. 1 & 2      :   Sri R.M.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

 

Smt. Sarmistha Nath,Member(W).

 

                The complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum against the O.Ps for redressal of his grievances U/S-12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 in terms of her prayer made in the complaint petition  alleging deficiency in service provided and unfair trade practice adopted by the O.Ps.

1. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is the owner of an Ashok Leyland-216 Truck bearing Regd. No.OR-19C-5415.  The said vehicle has been registered before the R.T.O,Cuttack and insured the vehicle under O.P.2 on 3.5.17 vide policy No.55030331170100000416 which covered from 5.5.17 to 4.5.18 at 11.59:59 P.M.  Copy of the registration certificate of vehicle and insurance policy of the vehicle are filed as Annexure-2 & 3 respectively.  On 31.12.2017 at about 3.30 P.KM, the truck met with an accident.  The husband of the complainant intimated the O.P.2 about the accident and the O.P.2 deputed a surveyor who inspected/verified the vehicle and took photos of the truck.  Thereafter, the complainant took the truck to the garage i.e. M/s. Nilachakra Motors And Engineering Workshop,Kendrapara for repair and prepared an estimate of Rs.1,80,000/- for repairing the vehicle and the estimate was produced before O.P.2.  Copy of the estimate dt.8.2.2018 is filed as Annexure-4.  Thereafter, the O.P.2 deputed a surveyor to the garage and after verification by the surveyor and discussion with mechanic, instructed the garage as well as complainant to repair the truck.  After completion of repairing work of the truck, the complainant submitted the final bill of amount Rs.2,11,000/- to the O.P.2 which includes the cost of new Dalla materials, cabin repairing materials, colour, dash board repairing and tank repairing materials  and labour charges etc and complainant himself paid the bill amount to the garage on 1.8.18 as there was delay in releasing the claim amount by the O.P.2.  In the 1^st week of September, OP.2 intimated the husband of complainant over phone to receive Rs.29,125/-.  The copy of final bill dt.1.8.2018 is filed as Anexure-5.  The husband of the complainant approached the O.P.2 several times by going to their office but no one cooperated with him.  The complainant issued advocate’s notice and after receipt of the advocate’s notice O.P.2 replied that as per the report of the surveyor the complainant is entitled to get Rs.29,111/- and requested the complainant to submit the bank account number.  The copy of the advocate’s notice dt.5.10.18 and reply of the O.P.2 to the said advocate’s notice dt.31.10.2018 is filed as Annexure-6 & 7 respectively.  The petitioner prays before the Forum to direct the O.Ps to pay Rs.2,11,000/- towards repairing cost of the vehicle, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. The O.P appeared through its counsel and filed its written version stating that there is no designation or officer by the designation of Sr. Branch Manager at New India Assurance Building,87 M.G Road,Fort Mumbai,.Maharastra and therefore it is a case of mis-joinder.    The O.P issued a policy whereby the vehicle of the complainant was insured.  Copy of the policy which covered the vehicle of the complainant is attached as Annexure-D/1.  The vehicle met with an accident on 31.12.2017 and the same was intimated to the insurer on 1.1.2018 and a surveyor was appointed by the O.P.2 to carry out spot survey.  On receipt of the claim form and the connected documents which included documents of the vehicle and estimate for repair, a final surveyor was appointed.  The final surveyor after examining the damage caused to the vehicle by accident and after discussion with the repairer and taking into account the spot survey report and the estimate of repair after applying policy exess,imposed excess has assessed the loss at Rs.26,625/- and rounded up the same to Rs.26,630/-.  The final survey report was received on 13.7.2018.  The original spot survey report is attached as Annexure-D/2.  The original final survey report is attached as Annexure-D/3.  The complainant submitted the bills of repair from Nilachakra motors on 6.8.2018.  The O.P after adding the towing charges of Rs.2500/- worked out the net payable amount at Rs.29,125/- and requested the complainant to provide her bank details on 25.9.18 so that the approved amount of Rs.29,125/- could be sent directly to her bank through NEFT.  But the complainant instead of providing the bank details sought several clarifications through her advocate by his notice dt.5.10.18.  Thereafter the clarification as required was sent on 31.10.18.  The O.P by cheque No.081373 dt.17.1.19 drawn on Axis Bank sent the approved amount to the complainant.  The O.P. took the plea that the repairer is a road side garage and not an authorized repairer of the manufacturer of the vehicle.  Therefore the bills as submitted by him do not carry any substantive weightage whereas the surveyor is a trained professional to assess the cost of repairs charged on the extent of damage and he is duly licensed by IRDA which is a statutory body under the Insurance Act and the claim having been settled in terms of the survey report, it is not open to the complainant to object to his independent report.  The bill as submitted by the complainant do not appear to confirm to the Income Tax Rules when the payment is alleged to be for an amount of Rs.2,11,000/-.  Copy of the reply of the O.P.1 to the complainant’s advocate notice dt.31.10.18 is attached as Annexure-D/4.  The averments made in para-3 in the complaint petition that the complainant was advised by the spot surveyor to take the vehicle to a particular garage has been denied by the O.P.2.  The averments made in para-5 in the complaint petition are denied by O.P.2 except for the settlement of the claim for Rs.29,125/-.  The bills provided by the complainant to the O.P.2 regarding the repair of the vehicle, do not appear to be a money receipt and proof of payment as contemplated under appropriate law and is an undated estimate.  Copy of the bill dt.18.4.2018 as submitted by the complainant to the O.P and received by them on 6.11.18 is attached as Annexure-D/5.  The averments made in para-6 in the complaint petition has been denied by the O.P and the O.P has further stated that after the settlement of the claim the complainant was requested to provide her bank details so that the settled amount of claim the complainant was requested to provide her bank details so that the settled amount of claim in terms of survey report could be sent to her but the complainant did not cooperate and sent an advocate’s notice.    It is further submitted by the O.P that the vehicle is 11 years and 11 months old as is evident from the R.C.Book.  Copy of the R.C.Book is attached as Annexure-D/6.  The vehicle met with an accident on 31.12.17 by the time of which the vehicle was more than 11 years and 11 months old.  The surveyor was an independent professional appointed as per the mandate of Sec-64 of the Insurance Act,1938 and he had visited the garage several times while the vehicle was being repaired.  The surveyor had discussed with the repairer and had assessed the loss on repair basis and allowed all the necessary charges and concluded that the damage caused due to accident did not require any replacement of parts and the claim has been settled strictly as per the survey report after adding the towing charges as admissible under the policy.  A bill from the road sided garage and not a money receipt as contemplated under haw has been submitted which is disputed document, so the prayer deserves no merit and liable to be rejected.
3. We have heard from the advocate of the parties at length, gone through their respective papers and perused the documents filed by the parties.

Admittedly the O.Ps have issued a policy whereby the vehicle of the complainant was insured and the policy was valid for the period from 5.5.2017 to 4.5.2018.During the subsistence of the policy, the vehicle met with an accident on 31.12.2017 and it was intimated to the insurer on 1.1.2018.On receipt of intimation insurer appointed a surveyor to conduct spot survey.The surveyor after examining the damage and discussing with the repairer assessed the loss at Rs.26,625/- and after repairing the truck the complainant submitted the bill of Rs.2,11,000/- but the insurer settled the claim for Rs.29,125/-.

During course of argument, the counsel for the O.P submitted that the repairer is a road side garage and not an authorized repairer of the manufacture of the vehicle and the bill submitted by him has no substantive weightage and the surveyor is an independent professional, so the claim was rightly settled strictly in terms of the survey report.

Per contra, the counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that there s no specific instruction or condition in the insurance policy regarding repair of damaged vehicle in any specific garage and as the claim of the complainant was allowed though the quantum is less, the O.Ps are stopped from raising the question of weightage of the garage and the O.Ps are under obligation to accept the bill submitted by the complainant.

After hearing rival submissions, we are of the considered view that the O.P/insurer is liable to accept the bill submitted by the complainant and pay the same.

                                                                                                ORDER

Basing upon the facts and circumstances, the complainant succeeds and O.Ps are directed to pay the entire bill amount of Rs.2,11,000/- and compensation ofRs.20,000/- towards mental agony and harassment to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 26^th day of November,2020 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                   

Smt. Sarmistha Nath

Member(W)

 

Sri D.C.Barik.

President.