Orissa

Cuttak

CC/62/2015

Dinabandhu Mohapatra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,United India Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S K Mishra

20 Sep 2019

ORDER

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

C.C No.62/2015

Dinabandhu Mohapatra,

At Plot No.4-D/1363,Sector-11,C.D.A,

Abhinava Bidanasi,

Town/Dist:Cuttack..                                                                    .… Complainant.

 

Vrs.

Branch Manager,

United India Insurance Company Ltd.,

‘Gopal Bhawan’, Cantonment Road, Branch-II,

PO:Buxibazar,Dist:Cuttack.… Opp. Party.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:    19.06.2015

Date of Order:  20.09.2019

 

For the complainant  :    Sri S.K.Mishra,Adv. & Associates.

For the Opp.Party.     :    Sri B.Das  Mohapatra,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(Act in short) in terms of his 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 short is that on 21.12.2014 while the complainant was going towards hospital by his motorcycle one bus bearing Regd. No.OD-02C-9795 negligently dashed against the complainant at about 9.00 am near City Bus Stand(Sector-11),C.D.A as a result of which the complainant sustained minor injuries but the wheels of the Bus ran over the complainant’s motorcycle causing extensive damage.  In this respect a station diary entry was made by  I.I.C,C.D.A,Phase-II,P.S:Cuttack on 31.12.14. A copy of station diary entry is annexed as Annexure-2.

The complainant contacted the insurance agent Sri Saroj Kanta Nandi through whom the insurance of the vehicle was done earlier and requested him to take up the insurance claim matter relating to the damage of the vehicle.

As per the assurance given by the said agent, that soon the damage claim will be settled after the surveyor submits his report, the complainant as per the request of the said agent handed over all the relevant papers including the copy of the S.D. entry to him.The said agent also advised the complainant to carry the vehicle to the company’s approved garage namely “Sunny Motors” for necessary repair.The complainant was given impression that one surveyor will come toSunny Motors to inspect the vehicle to note the specific damages caused to the vehicle and will advise the garage mechanic to repair the same.

On 31.12.14 (during noon time) after the vehicle was brought to “Sunny Motors” at Kanika Road,Cuttack by the complainant, the repair cost of the damaged vehicle was estimated at Rs.19,159/- by the garage mechanic.The repair of the vehicle did not start till arrival of the surveyor of the company.On 01.04.2015, surveyor namely Chittaranjan Behera @ Shaw came to Sunny Motors and took photographs of the damaged vehicle.The complainant furnished the copy of the estimate to the said surveyor which was earlier supplied to the complainant by the garage owner.The surveyor gave advice to the garage owner to start the repairing work.The copy of the garage estimate is Annexure-3.

After the vehicle was repaired, the garage owner tendered a bill of Rs.10,924/- to the complainant which the complainant duly paid and in presence of the surveyor got delivery of the said repaired vehicle.The complainant also handed over the copy of the invoice to the surveyor.After the invoice copy was given to the surveyor and the vehicle was brought from the garage by paying the cost of repair of Rs.10,924/- the complainant was hopeful that the insurance company will immediately release the said repairing cost of Rs.11,000/- plus some additional sum towards the transport charges, conveyance etc.But arbitrarily a total sum of Rs.6,500/- was credited to the bank account of the complainant towards the damage claim.The complainant vide his registered letter dt.21.4.15 requested the O.P to re-scrutinize the damage claim and pay a total sum of Rs.20,000/- which includes the cost of repair of Rs.10,924/-,business loss of the complainant and mental agony etc.The copy of the invoice and notice are annexed as Annexure-4 & 5 respectively.The O.P by letter dt.27.4.2015 informed the complainant that the damage claim has been settled basing on the surveyor’s report and there is no scope for paying any excess sum.Copy of the said letter is annexed as Annexure-6.The complainant has paid nearly Rs.11,000/- towards the cost of repair which was also to the knowledge of the company and said surveyor.

The complainant has prayed for a direction to O.P to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum due to their gross deficiency in rendering proper service.

2. The O.Ps appeared and filed their written version.  The O.P stated that the complaint is not maintainable and there is no deficiency on the part of the O.P in rendering service to the complainant.  The complainant is not entitled to any relief in this case.

The vehicle (motorcycle) bearing no.OR-05AM-6574 was insured by the O.P by the way of a package policy.During the currency of the said insurance policy the complainant informed the O.P about the damages caused to the motorcycle.The O.P immediately appointed one surveyor to assess the extent of loss sustained by the complainant.As per the insurance Act any claim arising out of the insurance policy has to be assessed through a licensed surveyor before the settlement of the claim.Upon getting the surveyor’s report, the claim of the complainant was settled at Rs.6,500/- and paid to complainant after deducting the depreciation amount, salvage amount and excess amount.The O.P has already settled the claim of the complainant on the basis of the report of the independent surveyor, so the claim of the complainant is not justified as it is based on no evidence or any basis for such reason, the complainant is not entitled to any relief.

3. We have heard from the learned counsels of the parties and gone through the pleadings, documents and papers carefully filed by the parties.

Admittedly the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the O.Ps and the same met with the accident and as the vehicle was repaired by the company’s approved garage, the bill towards repair was paid by the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,924/- but the O.P insurance company settled the claim of the complainant for Rs.6,500/- after deducting the depreciation amount, salvage amount and excess amount.But the O.P has not mentioned how the depreciation and excess amount is being calculated.So there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P.

                                                                                ORDER

Basing upon the facts and circumstances stated above, the complainant succeeds and the O.P is directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.4,424/- paid by the complainant towards repairing charges 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 20^th day of September,2019  under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

  ( Smt. Sarmistha Nath )

                       Member (W)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                (Sri D.C.Barik)

                           President