West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/20/2019

Radhashyam Sadhu - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Nabendu Ghosal

18 Aug 2023

ORDER

Shri Sudip Majumder- President-in-Charge.

            The complainant/petitioner files this case U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The fact of the case in brief is that the petitioner/complainant, Radhashyam Sadhu, permanent resident of Vill. Faujnagar, Deucha, Mahammad Bazar, P.O. Deucha and Dist. Birbhum, purchased an insurance policy No. 150921723340001805 date 25/11/2017,  vehicle No. WB-53-B-6625 .The policy was valid from 25/11/2017 to midnight of 24/11/2018, IDV Rs. 18,45,000/-.

            It is the further case of the complainant  that the vehicle met an accident on 17/01/2018 at about 7 A.M. and same fact was duly informed to the OP side.

            Thereafter, as per instruction of OP side, the complainant lodged an insurance claim being claim No 3118012542 along with Bill from Loknath Automobile, Barabagan, Suri, Birbhum dated 30/05/2018 amounting to Rs. 6,06,088/- as cost of repairing.

            OP appointed surveyor and assessed the damage, at Rs. 3,82,575/-. OP sent letter to the complainant Vide Document Request Letter dated 16/08/2018 and 22/08/2018 requesting the complainant to furnish the Assessed Estimate and cancelled cheque as per above assessment. OP did not agree to pay the entire claim of the complainant i.e. Rs 6,06,088/-.

            Hence, after finding no other alternative the complainant is compelled to file this case before this Forum/Commission for proper reliefs and prays for:-

 

 

 

1. To pass order directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 6,06,088/-(Six lakh six thousand eighty eight only) as insurance claim amount.
2. To pass order directing the OP to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on Rs. 06,06,088/-/-(Six lakh six thousand eighty eight only).
3. To pass order directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) as litigation cost and for mental pain and agony including cost of harassment.
4. Other relief/reliefs.

OP side stated in para 13(vi) of their written version as …. “Since there was no response given by the complainant to the OP towards the aforesaid letters/reminders on several occasions and as such the OP having no alternate option informed the complainant that the Ins. Co. could not keep a file open for an indefinite period for non-submission of the necessary requisite documents by the complainant/insured and hence, her claim is Closed.”

            Ultimately the OPs prayed for dismissal of the case.

            It appears from the case record that the OP submitted their written version but did not file OPW and written notes on argument. Even on the date of argument the OP did not take any step alike previous date. However, we have given attention to the view of the OP side from their written version.

Complainant’s side submitted evidence-in-chief and written notes on argument. Some documents have also been filed by the complainant compared with the original ones. Thereafter, Ld. Advocate for the complainant made oral argument in support of his case.

            Heard Ld. Advocate for the complainant.

            Considered.

            Perused all the documents.

Points for determination/Issues

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer as per definition of the term ‘Consumer’ of the C.P Act. ?
2. Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Op?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

Point No. 1:

            In this case, the complainant purchased an insurance policy for his vehicle vide policy No. 150921723340001805 dated 25/11/2017. Thus the complainant is a consumer under the OP member and the OP member is the service providers. Hence, the complainant is a consumer as per Sec. 2(1)d(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

 

Point No. 2:

            Pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission as per Sec. 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is Rs. 20,00,000/-. OP/Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Suri Branch is situated in Birbhum District i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission as per Sec. 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So, this Forum/Commission has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.

In this case, the cause of action arose from 30/05/2018 and the case has been filed on 31/01/2019 and as such it can be said that the complainant has filed this case within the statutory period of the C.P. Act, 1986 and as such the instant complaint is not barred by limitation U/S 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986.

 

 

Point No. 3:

It appears from the documentary evidence as available in the case record that the complainant purchased an insurance policy for his vehicle vide policy No. 150921723340001805 date 25/11/2017, for vehicle No. WB-53-B-6625. The policy was valid from 25/11/2017 to midnight of 24/11/2018, IDV Rs. 18,45,000/-. The vehicle in question met an accident on 17/01/2018 i.e. within the valid period of the said insurance policy. The complainant claimed Rs. 06,06,088/-/-(Six lakh six thousand eighty eight only) as cost of repairing as it was shown in the invoice of Loknath Automobile date 30/05/2018. The amount of claim is also within the IDV i.e.e within Rs. 18,45,000/-.

      But, the OP side stated in their written version as….. “As per General Norms of the Insurance Act, the OP could not process and settle the claim due to non-fulfillment or non-submission of the aforesaid mandatory requisite documents by the complainant and as such finally, the OP had no alternative but to close the said file as any such claim file cannot be kept open/pending for a longer period, although the OP waited for an indefinite period. Furtherance to the above it is pertinent to mention that the appointed surveyor under the claim had assessed the damages at Rs. 3,82,575/-.

      In this way, there was/is no negligence and carelessness on the part of the OP in any manner whatsoever as alleged by the complainant.”

      On the other hand the Complainant filed evidence-in-chief and written notes on arguments. Even at the final stage of hearing his lawyer took part in argument. But except filing of written version no other action was taken by the OP in all subsequent stages. Only written version has no value unless the contents thereof are established by evidence but nobody cause to counter afterwards.

      The petitioner has proved the receipt amounting to Rs. 6,06,088/- granted by Loknath Automobile as repairing cost. The OP could not negate it anyway. So, the claim of the petitioner stands.

           

 

 

 

 

From the above discussion, this Commission is of the view that the OP side did not agree to pay the entire cost of repairing as claimed by the complainant and cause shown by the OP side for repudiation of the said claim is baseless and vexatious one.

           

It is proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the aforesaid act of the OP members are amounting to deficiency in service as per Sec. 2(1) (g) of C.P. Act, 1986 as well as unfair trade practice as per Sec. 2(1) (r) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

Hence, from the above discussion it is proved that the complainant could be able to prove her case beyond all reasonable doubts.

 

 

Point No. 4:

 

From the documentary evidence as available in the case record it is crystal clear that the complainant is the beneficiary of the said policy.

As in this case, it is proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP members.

Hence, the complainant is entitled to get relief or compensation as prayed for.

Thus, all the points are decided in favour of the complainant.

Complaint is sufficiently stamped and proved beyond all reasonable doubts.

• We find in Chengalrayan Cooperative Sugar Mills Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2000) 10 SCC 213 it was held that “Interest ought to have been awarded from the date on which the claim was filed before the Forum.”
• We also find in Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. Vs. G. Harishchandra Reddy & Anr. (2007) 2 SCC 720 it was held that “Only 9% interest be awarded on refund matter.”

           

In the instant case as per view of the Hon’ble Apex Court in several cases the interest will be given @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                 

Hence, it is,

            O R D E R E D,

                                        that the instant C.F. Case No. 20/2019 be and same is allowed on contest with cost.

OP is directed to pay the actual cost of repairing as paid by the complainant.

=Total cost of repairing – less discount

= Rs. (6,06,088 - 36,088)

= Rs. 5,70,000/- (Five lakh seventy thousand only) to the complainant along with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. calculating on and from 31/01/2019 (i.e. from the date of filing of this case) till realization.

          The OP is also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand only) as cost of litigation to the complainant/petitioner.

The entire decree will be complied by the OP No. 1 within 45 (Forty five) days from this date of order, in default the complainant is at liberty to put this order to execution in accordance with law.

The instant case is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.