BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 18 of 2017
Sri Arup Deb,
Vill- Harinagar Bazar, P.O- Harinagar, Pin- 788107………………… Complainants.
-V/S-
1. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.
(Represented by its Officer-in-Charge)
Dare House, 2nd Floor No.2 NSC Bose Road,
Chennai-600001, Tamil Nadu ………………………………………..O.P.No.1
2. Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Aastha Plaza, 7th Floor, G.S Road, Opposite S.B Deorah College,
Ullubari, Guwahati-781007.………………………………………….O.P.No.2
3. Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Akhaura Road, Krishnagar, Agartala, Triura-799001…………….O.P.No.3
4. M/S. Surana Motors (Pvt) Ltd., (Represented by its Officer-in-charge)
Hailakandi Road, Silchar-788005, Dist. Cachar, Assam ………….O.P.No.4
5. Insuland Bank Ltd. (CFD), (Represented by its Branch Manager)
Rangirkhari Pont, Silchar-5…………………………………………O.P.No.5
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Sri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared: - Mr. Sujit Das, Advocate for the complainant.
Mr. S.S Dutta, Advocate for the O.P.No.1 to 3.
Mr. Mithu Deb, Advocate for the O.P.No.4 & 5.
Date of evidence 15-06-2018, 02-02-2019
Date of written argument 26-06-2019, 12-07-2019, 17-09-2019
Date of oral argument 16-11-2019
Date of judgment 19-11-2019
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri Bishnu Debnath
1. Sri Arup Deb brought this case against the Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company and its 2(two) more officers including M/S Surana Motors Pvt. Ltd and IndusInd Bank for award of sum insured of the goods carrying vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-11-AC-8062 and compensation for dis-service etc. In this case the complainant Sri Arup Deb is referred as “complainant” and the Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Complany and its 2(two) are referred as OPs No.1,2 & 3 respectively. M/S Surana Motors Pvt.Ltd. is referred as ‘OP No.4' and IndusInd Bank is referred as “OP” No.5.
2. To get the claims the complainant brought the case before this District Forum. The said facts are briefly stated below:
3. The complainant purchased above mentioned the Goods Carrying vehicle on financial aid of the OP No.5 from the OP No.4. The said vehicle was insured with the OP No.1 for the period covering the date on 28.11.2014, vide Insurance Policy No.3379/00685223/00/02. But unfortunately, on 28/11/2014 the said vehicle met road accident. Accordingly, the complainant sent the vehicle to the workshop of the OP No.4 for replacing some damaged parts and repairing. The OP No.4 issued job card and invoice for estimated cost of replacement of parts including repairing cost of Rs.7,10,508/-. The complainant accordingly submitted Claim Form, vide No.3379128126. But OPNo.1 to3 did neither send Surveyor to assess the damages of the vehicle nor make payment of aforesaid cost. Hence, finding no alternative the complainant paid cash of repairing expenditure and approach the OP No.1 to3 to reimbursement the cost as per invoice but the OP No.1to3 repudiated the claim on 08.07.2016. Hence, this case is brought for reliefs stated in the complaint petition.
4. The OP No.1 to 3 in their joint W/S denied the allegation and took the defense plea that when their surveyor found the invoice was cancelled by the OP No.4, repudiated the claim. They further stated that the complainant misrepresented the real facts and submitted a fake invoice. The OP No.4 in its W/s stated interalia that total repairing cost including replacement of parts was Rs.2,45,376/- and out of the said amount the complainant paid in cash of total Rs.1,54,000/-. However, the OP No. 4 further stated that the OP No.4 discounted Rs.50,000/- and the complainant is to pay balance amount of Rs.41,376/-. Of course, the OP No.4 further stated that Invoice for Rs.7,7,10,508/- was cancelled because the complainant did not approached in time to start repairing of the damaged vehicle as per the aforesaid Invoice. The OP No.5 in its w/s stated that the case has been brought against it without any basis and the allegation made in the complaint against the OP No.5 are not admitted.
5. During hearing the complainant submitted deposition and exhibited as many as 29 documents and after that submitted the written argument of his lawyer. The OP No.1 to 3 submitted deposition of Sri Sabir Ahmed Choudhury and exhibited some document. The OP No.4 submitted deposition of Rajkumar Rajesh Singha and exhibited relevant document to show the repairing expenditure of the insured vehicle. The OP No.5 also submitted deposition of Sri Abhishek Baidya. After submitting the aforesaid depositions all the above group of OPs submitted written argument of their respective lawyer.
6. I have heard oral argument of the learned advocate of the complainant and the learned advocate of the OP No.4 & 5 as they appeared personally before the District Forum when the case has been taken up for hearing. I have also perused the written arguments and evidence on record.
7. In view of the evidence on record it is concluded that it is a true fact that the insured vehicle was met accident and accordingly the damaged vehicle was handed over to the OP No.4 for repairing. The OP No.4 brought the evidence on record that the insured vehicle was repaired by the OP No.4 as per request of the complainant and charged total expenditure of Rs.2,45,376/- minus Rs.50,000/- and the complainant paid in cash of Rs 1,54,000, vide Ext.C produced by the OP No.4. Of course as per the OP No.4 the balance of Rs.41,376/- is remained unpaid.
8. So, in this case when the insured vehicle met accident during the coverage of the risk, the OP No.1 to 3 are liable to reimburse the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,45,376/- minus Rs.50,000/-. But plea of the OP No.1 to 3 are that the complainant brought a fake invoice of Rs.7,10,508/- which was cancelled by the OP No.4 subsequently.
9. On careful perusal of the evidence on record it is transpired that the complainant requested the OP No.4 to issue an estimated expenditure Invoice for repairing of the insured vehicle and accordingly the OP No.4 issued the Invoice but as per the said Invoice repairing was not done because the complainant did not turn up. So the OP No.4 by adducing evidence made the fact clear as why, the estimated Invoice was cancelled. In that aspect the complainant denying the allegation aforesaid by adducing evidence, tried to establish the plea that due to negligence of the Insurer and the OP No.4 delayed the process of survey of the vehicle and as such repairing was not started as per the estimated Invoice in time.
10. It is fact that repairing was not done as per estimated Invoice aforesaid because the Invoice was cancelled for whatever reason behind it, but the complainant subsequently initiated the process of repairing of the damaged vehicle and ultimately the vehicle was repaired and released by the OP No.4 to the complainant without interference of the Insurer. The aforesaid said facts are found unchallenged in view of the evidence on record. Therefore, when insurance policy is found valid and it a genuine case of reimbursement of repairing expenditure on basis of valid voucher, the OP No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to reimburse the repairing expenditure aforesaid.
11. In this case the complainant tried to convince this District Forum that the OP No.5 is also liable to pay the awarded money because the OP No.5 acted as agent to purchase the insurance policy. In this aspect, I have heard in detail of both the learned advocate of the complainant and the learned advocate of the OP No.5 and concluded that principal is liable for the act done by the agent or servant. But in this case OP No.5 acted as agent as alleged by the complainant, so, the OP No.5 is not liable to pay the compensation for the act done by it when principal is asked to pay compensation.
12. Of course the OP No.4 by adducing evidence made it believable that the balance amount of repairing expenditure of Rs.41,376/- is not yet paid by the complainant to the OP No.4. So, the OP No.1 to 3 are to make payment of Rs.41,376/- to the OP No.4 directly and balance amount of Rs.1,54,000/- to be paid to the complainant.
13. In this case it not made clear by the OP No.1 to 3 as why, survey was not done in time soon after the claim was submitted to assess the estimated cost of the repairing expenditure of the damaged vehicle. Rather, it is evident from the case record that on the flimsy ground of cancellation of the estimated Invoice, the claim was repudiated. So, the OP No.1 to 3 showed their callousness toward the complainant to assess actual repairing expenditure for the sake of making payment of actual repairing cost. Thus, they are further liable both jointly and severally to pay compensation for mental agony of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only with cost of this case of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) only in addition to reimbursement of the amount mentioned in the paragraph No.8 herein above.
14. The OP No.1 to 3 are directed to pay the aforesaid awarded amount within 45 days from today. If fail, interest at the rate of 10% per annum to be added to the awarded amount from the date of defaulter.
15. Therefore, the case is disposed of on contest. Supply free certified copy of the judgment to the parties of this litigation. Given under my hand and seal of this District Forum on this the 19th day of November, 2019.
