In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 308 / 2009.
1) Sri Saikat Saha,
B/111, Sonali Park, P.O. Bansdrono, Kolkata-700070. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) HDFC General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Metro Plaza, 10th Floor, 01, Ho Chi Minh Sarani, Kol-71. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 29 Dated 06/11/2012.
The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Saikat Saha. against the o.ps. HDFC General Insurance Co. Ltd. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant is a owner of a Maruti 800 DX car having regd no.WB 02G 8990 and the car was duly insured under the comprehensive Insurance Policy with o.p. and upon receipt of the premiums o.p. issued a policy certificate being no.VP00076713000104. Complainant was heading and approaching through the 2nd Hooghly Bridge (Vidyasagar Setu) near the Tole Plaza, a truck came in a rash and negligent manner endangering human lives and properties dashed against the rear side of the aid vehicle and the car was damaged badly and it was in such a bad shape, that the same could not be driven any further. The vehicle was taken to the Hastings P.S. by the help of a wrecker and complainant reported the accident and the same was registered as the Motor Collusion Report No.(MCR) 400 dt.5.11.08. Thereafter o.p. was duly informed and the said vehicle was sent to the garage for necessary repair so that the same could be restored to its original position. Complaiannt has no other alternative but to repair the said car for which he has obtained a quotation from the garage, A. Automobile, which is assessed at Rs.45,000/-. Photostat copies of the documents placed before the o.p. insurance company for the justification of the claim of complainant and o.p. their men, agents and servants from the very early stage were trying to reject the claim of complainant on some score or other vide their letter dt.7.3.09 which is not tenable in law or in facts. Hence the case was filed by complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.p. had entered its appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against it and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.p. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with reasons:-
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant incurred Rs.45,000/- for repairing of the vehicle and the said claim was repudiated by o.p. vide their letter dt.7.3.09, but from the said letter we do not find any specific reason as to why the claim has been repudiated and the said letter appears to be ambiguous and does not seem to be normal course of official functioning and such repudiation of o.p. amounts to gross deficiency in service being a service provider to its consumer / complainant. be that as it may we hold that the o.p. is at fault in repudiating the claim of the complainant without assigning any specific reason being a service provider and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. O.p. is directed to refund Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand) only being the repairing charges of the vehicle in question incurred by complainant whilst the vehicle was very much within the period of valid insurance policy and is further directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only for his harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
