DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 45 of 2019

 

Mrs. Archana Paul,

W/O. Mr. Parimal Paul,

Resident of College Road, East Shibnagar,

P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-East Agartala, PIN-799004,

Dist.-West Tripura, Agartala…...................................................................Complainant.

 

 

 

 

  -VERSUS-

 

 

 

1. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd.

(Guwahati Branch Office)

Adityam Building 6th Floor,

Lachitnagar, Ulubari, Guwahati-791007............................................... Opposite Party.

 

 

 

 

       __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : Sri Utpal Das,

  Smt. Kanta Debbarma,

  Advocates.

 

 

For the O.P.  : Sri P. K. Ghosh,

  Advocate 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 12 /03/2021.

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Mrs. Archana Paul, set the law in motion by presenting the complaint petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  complaining against the O.P. for deficiency of service. 

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant  insured the vehicle bearing Registration No.NL02K2798(Engine No.11B62996163 Chassis No.MAT466383B2B04179) with the O.P. vide Policy No.2315202107129900000 which the coverage of the said policy was from 25/02/2018 to 24/02/2019 the sum insured was Rs.10,81,000/-. All the due premium was also paid to the O.P. Insurance Company. On 14/03/2018 at about 17.00 hrs. while reached at 34 mile(Atharamura Hill range) under Munigiakami Police Station on Assam Agartala road the insured vehicle bearing No.NL02K2798 met with an accident and got badly damaged. The said accident was reported to the O.P.(Insurer) and a claim in respect of the above mentioned accident was made to O.P. Thereafter, the O.P. appointed (licensed surveyor) Mr. Sanjoy Debroy, Surveyor for assessment of loss and to submit the report. The Complainant has reported the matter to the Mungiakami Police Station after the accident vide MGK P.S. G.D. Entry No.018 dated 17/03/2018. The Complainant also got the vehicle repaired from M/S. New Super Auto Engineering Works situated at Assam Agartala Road, Kashipur, Agartala, West Tripura, by incurring a sum of Rs.4,17,500/- and the Complainant also purchased motor parts etc. from the repairer Shop. The Complainant had complied with the requirements for assessing the loss and it is understood that the attending surveyor submitted the report to the O.P. long back for settlement of the claim. But the O.P. did not settle the genuine claim of the Complainant rather delaying to settle the claim without any reason. The Complainant has served a legal demand notice dated 30/04/2019 to the O.P. for settlement of the claim. But on receipt of the legal demand notice the O.P. Insurance Company neither gave any response nor has shown any interest to settle the claim. Hence there is a clear deficiency in service on the part of O.P. Insurance Company. 

So, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the conduct of the O.P.,  the Complainant alleging deficiency of service has filed the instant complaint before this Commission /Forum claiming the cost of repairing of Rs. Rs.4,17,500/- and other compensations. 

2. On the other hand O.P. contested the case by filling written statement. 

        In the written statement the O.P. submitted para-wise reply to the complaint in seriatim. Mostly, O.P. denied and disputed the averments made in the complaint.  

      In the written statement it is also stated that after getting the information about the accident the O.P. registered the claim of the Complainant vide claim No.C230017300676. They also appointed Mr. Sanjoy Debroy as Surveyor who assessed the loss of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.1,50,350/- after considering the age of the vehicle and the applicable depreciation and excess. Thereafter, O.P. sent letters to the Complainant for the submission of certain documents. The letters were sent on 19/03/2018, 03/04/2018 and finally due to non cooperation of the Complainant the claim of the Complainant was closed for non submission of the documents on 21/05/2018. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. but it was the Complainant for whose non cooperation the claim could not be settled. It is also stated that the Complainant is not entitled to get the repairing cost of Rs.4,17,500/- as no paper is submitted in support of the claim. Moreover, the Complainant did not make party M/s. New Super Auto Engineering Works as O.P. for which claim is bad for non joinder of necessary party.            

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

Complainant has examined himself as PW-I and she has submitted her examination-in-Chief by way of Affidavit. In this case the complainant produced 10 documents comprising 14 sheets under a Firisti dated 14/06/2019. The documents are namely Mungiakami P.S. G.D. Entry No.018, Driving Licence of Sri Sachindra Singha, Registration Certificate of vehicle No.NL-02-K-2798, Tax token, Certificate of fitness, Certificate of National Permit, Insurance Policy of HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Bill of New Super Auto Engineering works dated 07/11/2018, Advocate Notice dated 30/04/2019 & Postal Receipt & delivery confirmation report. On identification the documents are marked as Exhibit-I series. The Complainant was cross examined by the O.P. side. 

          On behalf of the O.P. one witness namely Smt. Saswata Banerjee, Manager Claims of HDFC Ergo GIC Limited, situated at Kolkata was examined.  O.P. has produced 5 documents comprising 21 sheets under a Firisti dated 05/03/2020. The documents are namely Letter dated 18/05/2018 & 21/08/2018 by the Complainant, Letter dated 16/05/2018 & 18/08/2018 by  Letters by the O.P. dated 19/03/2018, 03/04/2018 & 16/05/2018, Request letter dated 21/05/2018 by the O.P. & Insurance Policy along with terms of policy. But DW was not cross examined as the O.P. failed to produce the witness on the date fixed. 

                 

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    On perusal of the pleadings of both parties and having regard to the evidence adduced by the parties, the following points are to be determined:

    (i). Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. towards the Complainant?

    (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation/ relief as prayed for?

ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES 

     On the date of arguments both sides submitted that written argument.

          We also heard Mr. Uttpal Das Learned Counsel of the Complainant. But on the date of argument Counsel of the O.P. was absent.                

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:                                     

        For the sake of the convenience all the points are taken up  together for decision. We have minutely gone through the pleadings as well as evidence of both sides. The stand taken by the O.P. is that the Complainant failed to produce necessary documents as per their demand and due to non cooperation from the side of the Complainant the claim number/account was closed. In the instant case the Complainant Smt. Archana Paul in her examination-in-chief on Affidavit reiterated the same facts which she has narrated in the complaint. So, we are not reproducing the same. In cross she denied the suggestion put to her that due to non production of the documents her claim was repudiated. On the other hand from the examination-in-chief submitted by the DW-1 we also found that one Sri S. Debroy was appointed who was approved Surveyor to assess the liability of the company for the alleged losses and Mr. Debroy had assessed the loss of the vehicle Rs.1,50,350/- after considering the age of the vehicle and the applicable depreciation and excess. DW-I also stated that the Complainant failed to submit the necessary paper in time. In this regard letters were sent to the Complainant and in reply the Complainant informed that due to illness of the Proprietor of the repair workshop, it was delayed for repairing the damaged vehicle. Then, the cause of delay was that some of the workers left the job for which repairing work could not be done. The documents submitted on behalf of the O.P. supported the statement of O.P. From the documents we found that actually delay was caused from the side of the workshop M/s. New Super Auto Engineering Workshop and the Complainant could not submit the papers in time before the Insurance Authority. 

             However, from the evidence of the both sides we found that there is no dispute in respect of the comprehensive insurance policy in respect of the vehicle in question and accident was occurred during the period of coverage. It is a fact that the Complainant did not make party to M/s. New Super Auto Engineering Workshop for which the claim can not be brushed aside. The Complainant ought to have made the Proprietor of the Workshop as a witness to prove the total repairing cost while there is a surveyor report. In the written argument Learned Counsel of the O.P. stated that the Surveyor report can not be set aside without any justified reasons. The Complainant has failed to give rebuttal evidence regarding the assessment made by Surveyor nor he has been able to give reason for delay to justify his claim. We have considered the written argument of both sides. 

               From the exhibited documents of the Complainant we found that the bill dated 07/11/2018 issued by M/s. New Super Auto Engineering Works amounting to Rs.3,00,500/- is submitted by the Complainant in respect of the repairing cost but no other bills were submitted. The Complainant has failed to prove the authenticity of the bill as the Proprietor of the Workshop was not examined. It is settled law that Surveyors report will have to be given preference unless there is any rebuttal evidence. 

7.              On appreciation of evidence of both sides, we are in the opinion that the Complainant is entitled to get compensation as per assessment given by the approved Surveyor that means Rs.1,50,350/- only. Since, delay was caused due to the fault to the Complainant, we can not award any compensation on the account of deficiency in service but we opine that the Complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.10,000/- for harassment and mental agony as well as Rs.5,000/- for litigation costs. In total the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,65,350/-(Rs.150,350/-+ Rs.10,000/- + Rs. 5,000/-).        

              The O.P. is directed to make the payment within 1 month from this day to the Complainant and in case O.P. fails to comply the judgment it will carry @9% interest on the total amount of Rs.1,65,350/- till the realisation. 

           Thus the complaint petition is partly allowed. 

Supply a certified copy of the judgment to both the parties  free of cost. 

 

    Announced.

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

  DR  (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA