West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/3/2018

Sri Tapas Bhattacharya - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Asim Kumar Dutta

26 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Pulak Kumar Singha, Presiding Member,

                                                                                                             and

                                                                                          Sagarika Sarkar, Member.

 

Complaint Case No.03/2018.

 

Sri Tapas Bhattacharya, S/o-Sudhir Bhattacharya

at Vill.-Krishnapur, P.O.-Kharar &  P.S.-Ghatal,

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

                                                                                                         -Vs-                                                                                                                              

1. The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.

                                             Kharagpur Branch, At-Inda, P.O.& P.S.-Kharagpur(T),                                                                                                               Dist.-Paschim Medinipur,Pin-721305.

                                              ……………O.P.No.1.

2. HDFC Bank  Ltd., Midnapore Br. Office,

                                                                            Keranitola, P.O.-Midnapore, P.S.-Kotwali,                                                                                            Dist.-Paschim Medinipur,Pin-721101.

                                                ………………O.P.No.2.

                                                  

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

              For the O.P.              : Mr. Pinaki Sengupta & Mr. Pulakananda Mondal, Advocate.

                                                         

                                                     Date of filling : 04/10/2018                                                                                                             

                                                      Decided on   : 26/09/2018

                                

                                                                                    Contd……..……P/2.

 

( 2 )

ORDER

                          Pulak Kumar Singha :– Complainant files this case u/s 12 of the C.P. Act. In short the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased one Truck being no. WB-33/C/5725 with financial assistance of O.P. no.2, said vehicle met with an accident on 22/06/2017 at about 5-30 a.m., under Bhupatinagar police station. Complainant intimated the incident to O.P. no.1 and O.P. no.1 inspected the damaged vehicle through their surveyor and as per instruction of surveyor the vehicle in question started repaired by the  authorized service centre. Complainant submitted documents and claimed for compensation but O.P. no.1  repudiated the claim and for  such deficiency of service, complainant appeared before this Forum for getting redressal as per prayer of his complaint.

                    O.P. no.1 contested the case by filing written objection denying the  allegations of complainant stating interalia that the complaint is not maintainable, complainant lodged information of accident after 11 days before P.S. complainant suppressed the actual  material fact of this case. This O.P. has no deficiency of service. This complaint is liable to be dismissed.

O.P. no.2 also contested the case by filing written objection stating interalia that complainant purchased the vehicle in question with the financial help of this O.P. complainant filed this case to avoid payment of monthly installment. This O.P.  prays for dismissal of then case.    

                                                             Decision with Reasons.

                     We carefully perused the complaint written objection, evidence, documents and also considered the argument of both parties. Face of the case is that complainant purchased one Truck by the financial assistance of O.P. no.2 and said vehicle was insured with O.P. no.1.

 The vehicle in question met with a road accident for which said vehicle was badly damaged and mater was reported with O.P. no.1 as well as concern Police Station. The investigator of O.P. no.1 inspected the damaged vehicle and permitted to the authorized company service centre to repair the vehicle. Complainant submitted estimated bill and other documents to O.P. no.1 but O.P. no.1 repudiated the claim on the ground of misrepresentation of fact in respect of driver’s name.

In support of his case complainant adduced evidence by filing examination-in-chief and tendered himself as witness of P.W.1 and one Sayed Rahamatulla adduced evidence of PW-2, who claimed as company’s authorized surveyor  and who  inspected the damaged vehicle in the service centre and estimated the cost of repairing.  

                                                                                                                       Contd……..……P/3.

 

( 3 )

Both witness are cross examined by O.Ps. complainant also submitted R.C. insurance policy copy, F.I.R., seizure list, charge sheet and bill of estimated cost for repairing the vehicle which are exhibited. O.P. no.1 adduced no evidence on their behalf   but submitted some copies of photographs of the damaged vehicle and investigation report with copy of estimate and subsequently submitted affidavit by surveyor. O.P. no.2 did not adduce any evidence but they submitted statement of payments of installments of loan amount.

It is admitted that during the validity period of insurance the vehicle in question met with an accident and sustained badly damaged.  

It appears from the documents that O.P’s investigator investigated the damaged vehicle and assessed loss but repudiated the claim of  the complainant on the ground that complainant misrepresented the fact in respect of name of  driver in intimation and claim form. O.P’s investigator at the time of argument submitted one analytical report with affidavit that as per position of accident, driver cannot came out from the vehicle without any injury. It is fact that one Sayan Das, alleged as cleaner sustained injury on his person. Assumption or presumption cannot established any final decision until there is any supported evidence in that respect. In the instant case O.P. did not adduce any evidence.

We find from the exhibit-3, 3/1 and 3/2, i.e. F.I.R. , charge sheet and seizure list, that F.I.R. lodged by one relative of said Sayan Das who claimed that his cusin brother was helper of the truck in question, from the seizure list it  appears that concern P.S. has seized driving  licence of Sri Tapas Bhattacharya i.e. complainant and submitted charge sheet being no.128/17dated 30/08/2017 u/s 279/338 I.P.C. against driver Sri Tapas Bhattacharya i.e. complainant, as per documents it is established that complainant  was the driver of the Truck in question, so, such  repudiation of claim of insurance cannot sustained and as such complainant is entitled the claim for his damaged vehicle. O.Ps. investigator assessed loss of Rs.4,81,894/- after all deductions. Whereas authorized service centre of the purchased vehicle estimated for repairing the damaged vehicle total of Rs.9,25,338/-  (Exhibit-6 series). It appears from the investigation report in respect of loss assessed by Saibal Sarkar surveyor that is summary assessment estimated cost of labour charge was assessed Rs.1,13,044/- but assessed labour charged calculated Rs.65,000/-. In case of damage of vehicle labour charge cannot be reduced.  If we add the reduced labour charge amount (i.e. Rs.1,13,044.00—Rs.65,000.00)=Rs.48,044.00, then total amount comes to Rs.4,81,894.00 + Rs.48,044.00=Rs.5,29,938.00as per assessment of O.Ps. surveyor.

                                                                                                                     Contd……..……P/4.

 

( 4 )

O.P. no.2 is the financer of the insured vehicle and complainant has no claim against O.P no.2.

In view of the above discussions herein above our considered opinion is that the  complaint case proved against the O.Ps.  The repudiation of claim is illegal and without any basis and O.P. No.1 is deficient of service as such complainant is entitled to get an order with compensation.

Thus complaint case succeeds.         

                                   Hence, it is,

                                                Ordered

                         that the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against O.Ps.  O.P. no.1 is directed to pay Rs.5,29,938/-, to  pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental pain and to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the  complainant within one month from the date of order.

 Failure to comply this order O.P. no.1 shall  be liable to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as penal cost from the date of order in favour of  State Consumer Welfare Fund  till full realization.

                                       Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

 

                 Dictated and Corrected by me

 

                         Presiding  Member                                              Member                        

                            District Forum

                         Paschim Medinipur