Tripura

West Tripura

CC/17/2016

Sri Raiharan Datta. - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Manager, Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. & 2 others. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.S.Banik, Mr.P.Chakraborty, Mr.S.Chakraborti, S.Debnath.

19 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 17 of 2016

Sri Raiharan Datta,
S/O- Late Ramesh Chandra Datta,
Chhanban, South Tripura,
P.S- R.K. Pur,
Udaipur, Gomati.                …..…...Complainant.

      VERSUS

1.Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Registered office and Head Office at 
Dare House, 2nd Floor, No.2,
N.S.C. Bose Road,
Chennai- 600 001,
Represented by its General Manager.

2.Sri Mani Sankar Saha,
The Authorized Signatory of
Chola M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Teen Sanghi, 2nd Floor, 
Akhaura Road, Krishnanagar,
Agartala, West Tripura.

3.Sri Paresh Biswas,
Prop. of Maa Bipadnashini Body Builder,
Kashipur(Cooperative),
A.A. Road, P.S. East Agartala,
West Tripura.            ......Opposite parties.

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant        : Sri Pradip Chakraborty, 
                      Sri Sujit Chakborty,
                          Smt. Sukriti Debnath,
                          Advocates.
                         
For the Opposite parties        :  None appeared.

 

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  19.08.2016

 

J U D G M E N T
        This case was filed by one Raiharan Datta U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. He filed the complaint against the Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. and Mani Sankar, Authorized Signatory of the Company and also against Paresh Biswas, proprietor of Maa Bipadnashini Body Builder. Notice was sent to all O.Ps. Paresh Biswas refused to receive the notice. Another Mani Sankar Saha not found and notice sent by registered post to him. Service of notice in respect of another O.P. No.1, Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. not proved by proper service. In this regard petitioner failed to take step. Case proceeded exparte. 
        
2.        The allegation of the complainant is that he purchased one vehicle and the vehicle was insured with Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd., O.P. No.1. Validity was 25.09.15. But the vehicle met road traffic accident on 08.04.15 at Maharanipur and it was badly damaged. Matter was informed to O/C, Teliamura and it was also informed to O.P. No.1 and 2. Spot survey was conducted by O.P. Insurance company. Thereafter, the vehicle was shifted to the workshop. Estimate for repairing was prepared by O.P. No.3. Total estimate for repairing was Rs.3,28,330/-. Petitioner furnished the claim form and vehicle was repaired in the shop of O.P. No.3 who charged Rs.3,28,330/-. O.P. No.2, authorized signatory of Cholamandalam asked the petitioner to provide some documents. Those are also produced but the claim was not satisfied. So, this case filed seeking redress. 

3.        O.P. did not appear to contest the case. Petitioner then produced original complaint to O/C, Teliamura, inspection report, copy of bill, copy of letter of the insurance company, received letter, copy of Insurance Policy, exhibited and marked as Exhibit- 1 Series. Petitioner also examined one witness, complainant Raiharan Datta whose statement on affidavit is given.

4.        We have gone through the documents and the evidence given by the petitioner to decide the matter finally. 

Findings and decisions;
5.        The matter of filing complaint to the O/C about the accident is supported by FIR. It was received by O/C, Teliamura P.S. District Transport Officer prepared the inspection report. List of damages is reflected in the report. Load body, Front Bumper, head light, front show, driver cabin, driver door, W/S glass, rear looking mirror, all are damaged. Cash memo given by Maa Bipadnashini Body Builder for Rs.2,42,230/-, another cash memo is given for Rs.3,28,330/-. One letter is filed by the Chola MS. On assessment the company assessed the damage  up to Rs.87,675/-. Insurance liability was up to that extent. Manager of the company asked the Maaa Bipadnashini Body Builder to provide xerox copy. Paresh Biswas Proprietor of Maa Bipadnashini Body builder sent the bill matters informing expenditure Rs.3,52,981/-. Cash memo in this regard is produced. 

6.        We have also gone through the policy documents, photocopy. On perusal of the policy it is found that total value of the vehicle was Rs.18,88,178/-. Total premium is Rs.37,739/-, so for own damage coverage was about Rs.18 lakhs. From the correspondence of Cholamandalam it is found that they were aware about the accidental damage. Some correspondence in this regard also made. Authorized signatory refused to accept the notice. The company also did not appear to avoid the responsibility. Policy was alive at the time of accident. Its coverage was up to 25.09.15. Accident occurred on 08.04.15. As during the coverage period accident occurred so cost of repairing of the damage is to be paid by the company. Cholamandalam assessed it Rs.87,675/- but assessment report not given. Actual repairing cost as per cash memo is Rs.3,28,330/-. Therefore, we have decided that petitioner is entitled to get this amount from the O.P. petitioner is also entitled to get Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service, cost of litigation Rs.5000/-. Thus, in total petitioner is entitled to get the amount of Rs.3,43,330/- from the O.P. No.1 and 2, Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. and  Chola M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd., Mani Sankar Saha, Authorized Signatory. Direct both the O.Ps, Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. and Mani Sankar Saha authorized signatory of Chola M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. to arrange the payment. Authorized signatory received the notice of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd.    Therefore, service of notice on O.P. No.2 is    sufficient in respect of service  to Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Ltd. Apart from this Cholamandalam issued several notices, letters to the petitioner and was aware about the fact but they did not appear. Therefore, the direction will be applicable to both O.Ps No.1 and 2. Not to O.P. No. 3. Case is decided accordingly. O.Ps shall pay the amount within 2 months from the date of judgment. If not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.   

                     Announced.

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.