Date of Filing:     01.03.2022.                                  Date of Disposal: 24.06.2022. 

Complainant                 :Mr. Habibul Mallick, S/R Sri Sayed Ali Mallick, Vill. Natungram, P.O. Nischintapur, P.S. Khandaghosh, Dist. Purba Bardhaman, Pin-713142.

-VERSUS -

Opposite Party             :1. Liberty General Insurance Limited, having its branch office at Burdwan, Opposite of ICICI Bank, near Curzon Gate, P.O. & P.S. Burdwan. Dist. Purba Bardhaman, represented by its Branch Manager.

2. The Manager, HDB Financial Service Limited, Burdwan, Opposite of ICICI Bank, near Curzon Gate, P.O.& P.S. Burdwan, Dist. Purba Bardhaman, Pin No. 713101.

3. Highway Car Care, a unit of Jiwanmal Dhanraj (Bharat) Pvt. Ltd., having its workshop at Bye Pass More, Alisha, P.O. Joteram, P.S. Burdwan, Dist. Purba Bardhaman. Pin -713101, Rep. by its Proprietor.

Present                                   : Mohammad Muizzuddeen               -Hon’ble President.

                                                : Mrs. Lipika Ghosh                          - Hon’ble Member.

Appeared for the Complainant  :Sri Debdas Rudra                    Ld. Advocate.

Appeared for the Opposite Party          :

                                     FINAL ORDER (EX PARTE)

Order No: 13                                                                                                                                dt. 24.06.2022.

Today is fixed for passing final order ex parte.

            The record is taken up for passing final order ex parte. No step is taken by the complainant.

            The case of the complainant, in brief, is that on 01.03.2021 the complainant has filed this complaint u/S 35 of the C. P. Act, 2019 against the OPs. The complainant is a registered owner of Bolero Maxi Truck Plus bearing Registration No. WB41J 5894 and on 15.12.2020 at about 8.00 p.m the driver of the truck namely Mr. Molla Mostafa was on the way from Polempur to the house of the complainant and while it was crossing a road-hump , one car was coming from the opposite direction and without seeing the  road-hump, the truck  crossed the said road-hump with normal speed for which the truck was partly damaged. Due to such accident, the driver could not start it to ply on the road. On 16.12.2020 in the morning, the complainant intimated the said fact to Mr. Sourav Das of OP No.1 who told to depute the damaged truck to OP No.3 with the help of a crane and he placed the said truck to the OP No.3. After receiving the information, the OP No.1 did not appoint any surveyor for the inspection of the said truck in the garage of OP No.3. The said truck was covered under the Insurance Policy being No. 201330140520700043400000 for the period from 04.09.2020 to 03.09.2021. The OP No.3 after inspection of the damaged truck prepared an estimate dt. 22.12.2020 amounting to Rs. 59,294/- and the OP No.3 arranged for the motor insurance claim form  duly filled up by the complainant and submitted the Claim Form along with all the required documents and the estimate. The complainant requested the OP No.1 to settle the claim so that the OP No.3 could complete the repairing work of the said truck. But the OP No.1 did not settle the claim till date. Due to non-settlement of the claim, the complainant suffered from huge financial loss because he has to pay the E.M.Is before the OP No.2 financer against the car loan. On the other hand, the complainant is very poor and it was not possible for him to pay Rs.59, 294/- for the repairing changes of the damaged truck from his own pocket. So to get temporary relief, the complainant requested the OP No.3 to repair the said truck temporarily by installing old parts for few days so that he can ply the said truck on road to earn his livelihood. The complainant also requested the OP No.3 that as and when the OP No.1 will settle the insurance claim in respect of the damaged truck, then the OP No.3 would un-install those old parts from the truck and finally repair the truck as per estimate issued by the OP No.3. and as such the OP No.3 for just to make the truck on road worthy condition, temporarily installed some old parts against the said truck and it was delivered to the complainant which  costs Rs.16,099/- . The complainant also paid Rs.16, 099/- to the OP No.3. For non-settlement of the claim, the OP No.1 committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

            Upon this background, the complainant has filed this case praying for directing the Op No.1 to pay Rs.59,294/- as per estimate dt. 22.12.2020 along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.

            Though the notices have been served upon the OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3, they did not turn up to contest the case. Accordingly, the case was fixed for ex parte hearing and ultimately the case is heard ex pate.

                                              Decision with Reasons.

            In order to prove the case, the complainant has examined himself by filing evidence-on-affidavit and he also filed Xerox copies of certificate of registration, insurance policy issued by OP No.1, Xerox copy of driving license of the driver and the claim form and Xerox copy of invoice dt. 06.01. 2021 amounting to Rs. 16,099/- issued by the OP No.3 and an estimate dt. 22.12.2020 amounting to Rs.59, 294/- issued by OP No.3.

            From the insurance policy and the certificate of registration, it is found that the complainant is the registered owner of the truck in question and he is a consumer under the OP No.1 and the accident occurred on 15.12.2020 as per oral evidence of the complainant and the truck in question was covered under the insurance policy at the time of accident. From the fact mentioned in the complaint as well as in oral evidence, it is clear that the OP No.3 did not repair the truck in question as per the estimate given by him and as per request and direction of the complainant, he only installed some old parts to the truck in question to make it road worthy condition and delivered the truck to the complainant. As per Invoice No. HCC/20-21/817 dt. 06.01.2021 it was found that repairing cost was Rs.16,099/- . Therefore, it is also clear that the estimate given by the OP No.3 amounting to Rs. 59, 294/- has not been effected at all. The complainant, on oath by filing evidence-on-affidavit, clearly stated that the factum of incident was informed to the OP No.1 –Insurance Company but the OP No.1 did not take any step to send the Surveyor for inspection and starting the repairing work by OP No.3 though his staff asked the complainant to send the truck to OP No.3. It can be said that it is inaction on the part of the OP No.1 and as the complainant, due to financial stringency, could not repair the truck as per estimate submitted by OP No.3. He requested the OP No.3 to make the truck road worthy condition to ply the same to earn his livelihood as he had to pay the EMIs to OP No.2 –financer of the car loan.

            On the other hand, he paid Rs. 16099/- to the OP No.3 as repairing cost temporarily on condition that as and when the OP No.1 settled his claim as per estimate, the vehicle would be repaired as per estimate submitted by OP No.3. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the unchallenged evidence of the complainant and the complainant has been successful to prove the case that the OP No.1 committed deficiency in service to the consumer-complainant. So, he is entitled to get the truck in questioned to be repaired as per estimate submitted by the OP No.3.

            The complainant has been suffering from mental pain, agony and harassment due to inaction of the OP No.1 for non-settlement of the claim or not sending the surveyor for starting the repairing work of the truck in question and he is also entitled to get litigation cost.

            Under the above facts and circumstances, the OP No.1 be directed to pay           Rs.59, 294/- as per estimate of OP No.3 to the complainant so that he may get the truck in question to be repaired.  As a result, the case succeeds.

            Hence, it is

                                                   ORDERED

That the Consumer Complaint No. 30/2021 be and the said is allowed ex parte against all the OPs but without any cost.

            OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.59, 294/- only for repairing of the damaged truck as per estimate dt. 22.12.2020 issued by the Op No.3 to the complainant.

            The OP No.1 is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10, 000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only)  to the complainant and Rs.5, 000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only)  as litigation cost.

            The OP No.1 is directed to pay total amount of Rs.(59,294/- + 10,000/- + 5,000/-)     = Rs. 74,294/-(Rupees Seventy Four Thousand, Two Hundred and Ninety Four only)  to the complainant by an account payee cheque within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. till realization.

            Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties on free of cost.

     Dictated & corrected by me.

                      President

     D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman.

                       Member                                                                         President

     D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman.                                       D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman.