West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/86/2016

Sk. Rajabul Islam - Complainant(s)

Versus

I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Asim Kumar Dutta

18 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President

and

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member

    

Complaint Case No.86/2016

 

    Sk. Rejabul Islam, S/o Sk. Lutfar Rahaman, Vill.-Ghurachawk,

P.O.-Kismatangua, P.S.-Kotwali,

Dist-Paschim Medinipur…..….………Complainant

Versus

1. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Kharagpur Branch, 2^nd floor , M/S Tower , O.T. Road, Inda, P.O.-Inda,

Dist-Paschim Medinipur;

2. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Kharagpur Branch Office, at Inda, Kharagpur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur ………….Ops.

 

 For the Complainant:  Mr. Ashim Kumar Dutta, Advocate.

 For the O.P.             :  Mr. Pinaki Sengupta, Advocate.                         

 

                                                 Decided on: - 18/05/2017                             

ORDER

 Mr. Pulak Kumar Singha, Member :  In short the case of the complainant is that the complainant is a owner of Pickup Van bearing no. 33C/4730 and said vehicle was insured with O.P. no.1 and insurance policy was valid for the period from 08/01/2016 to 19/04/2017. The said vehicle met with an accident on 19/04/2016 near panchanion Keshpur-Midnapore Road and front portion of the vehicle got damaged. Complainant informed thematter to the O.P. no.1 over telephone and as per advised O.P. no.1 complainant placed the damaged vehicle to National Engineering Work, repairing centre

Cond……………….P/2

 

( 2 )

at Midnapore town. Complainant submitted final bill to the O.P. No.1 but this O.P. ignored and avoid to settle the claim of the complainant. Finding no way the complainant appeared before this Forum for getting Redressal as per prayer of his complaint.

              O.P. no.1 contested the case denying the allegations of complainant stating interalia that this case is not maintainable, complainant  did not intimate the  O.P. No.1 about the accident as per terms of policy condition, prior to investigation the said vehicle was dismantled for which surveyor had no scope to assess the actual loss. Complainant being owner insured violated terms and condition of insurance policy and without consent or inspection of surveyor the said vehicle was dismantle. So, this O.P. is not liable to pay compensation to the complainant. This O.P. prayed for dismissal to the case.

              O.P. no.2 also contested the case by filing written statement stating interalia that O.P. no.2  is a financial institution who provided financial assistance to the tune of Rs.4,90,000/- for purchasing the vehicle in question. This O.P. prayed for necessary order.

Points for decision :

1. Whether the complainant is maintainable ?
2. Whether Op. no.1 has deficiency of service ?
3. Whether complainant is entitle to get relief as prayed for

Decission with Reasons

             All the points are taken together for the sake of convenience  and brivity. We travelled over the case record and documents,  it appears that it is admitted fact that vehicle in question met with an accident and sustained damage front portion of the vehicle. Complainant to prove his case adduced evidence and examine himself as witness and filed documents i.e. copy of R.C. Book, policy, claim form, repairing bill, repudiation letter, six copy of photograph etc. Which have marked  exhibit 1 to 7 respectively. Complainant  was cross examined by Op. no.1 & 2 but no materials come out in favour of O.P. no.1. From the evidence and case record it appears that immediate after the accident the complainant informed O.P. no.1, subsequently again intimated on the next day of the date of accident and as per verval of O.P. no.1 advise the damaged vehicle was produced before the repairing garage but no surveyor or was engaged by O.P. no.1. Thereafter complainant submitted claim form and estimate to .P. no.1 which was also accepted by O.P. no.1. The damaged vehicle was dismantled by the mechanic of the repairing centre. The surveyor of O.P. no.1 attended the repairing garage and inspected the damaged spares and as well as the vehicle also. From the photographs it shows that the front portion of the vehicle alongwith engine also badly damaged. It appears from the purchased spares and engine

Cond……………….P/3

 

( 3 )

repaired bills that Rs.62,823/- has already been expensed. The vehicle in question is purchased in the year April, 2015and accident occurred in the year April, 2016, so, as per policy condition depreciation of the spares value would be less 15% of gross value and it came out of Rs.53,000/- and for whole repair work labour charge including paint may be cost of Rs.20,000/-. In the instant case OP no.2 has no part regarding settlement of claim.  He is the financer of the vehicle.  Op no.1 had the duty to engaged spot survey or to inspect the vehicle immediately after getting information from the complainant but Op no.1 was fail to do his duty as service provider.  As the vehicle was purchased through loan from op no.2 and the vehicle in question was hired vehicle.  So, there is financial pressure of complainant as he has to pay EMI to OP no.2. 

                In view of the discussion here in above we think the complaint is maintainable as the OP no.1 repudiated the claim and complaint is also filed within two  years from the date of cause of action as per C.P. Act.  It reveals from the documents and evidence that OP no.1 was never explained why they did not depute spot surveyor immediate after the accident  rather they have taken plea that without consent of surveyor the damaged vehicle was dismantle.  In support of their contents OP no.1 did not adduce any evidence.  Op no.1 is negligent and deficient of service and they did  not perform their duty as a service provider as the complainant purchased policy and paid premium in time to OP no.1.

              In the above discussions we find that Op no.1 is negligent and deficient of service and complaint case stands and complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for.

              Complaint case succeeds.

                                      Hence, it is,

                                                       ORDERED,

             That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the Ops.  OP no.1 is directed to pay Rs.73,000/- as repairing cost of the vehicle and to pay Rs.10,000/- compensation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.  OP no.1 also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within stipulated time.  Failure to comply the order OP no.1 is liable to pay penal damage of Rs.5,000/- per month to be paid to this forum from the date of order till full satisfaction.         

Dictated and Corrected by me

       Sd/- P.K. Singha                                                                                 Sd/-B. Pramanik.

                Member                                                                                           President

                                                                                                                     District Forum

                                                                                                                 Paschim Medinipur