Order-12.
Date-22/07/2016.
The instant case emancipates from repudiation of insurance claim.
The case of the complainant, in short, is that he is the owner of the vehicle no.WB – 12D 0801, Model Toyota Fortuna. On the approach and request of insurance company (OPs1 and 2), the complainant took the insurance policy of the aforesaid vehicle with coverage from 13-10-2014 to 12-10-2015. Complainant’s aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 24-11-2014 near Alampur Bridge within Burdwan P.S. while trying to save a cow which suddenly came at front of the car and the car got battery damaged and the director of the complainant lodged GDE being No.1653 dated 25-11-2014 at Burdwan P.S. The complainant, thereafter, applied for claim for damage, loss of the vehicle but the OPs without any valid and cogent reason repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 24-12-2014. It is alleged that the OPs are guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency of services and claimed Rs.2,65,000/- along with interest and other reliefs.
OPs 1 to 3 have filed written version contending, inter alia, that the complainant has no cause of action against the OPs in this case. It is stated that the OPs on receiving information deputed Mr. Rajat Gupta and IRDA licensed surveyor to ascertain the cause and extent of loss. As per the report of the surveyor the damages to the vehicle were not correlated with the nature of the accident as stated by the complainant in its claim form vide his enquiry letter dated 27-01-2014. Thereafter, the OPs deputed one Mr. Prasanta Ghosh to investigate into the matter and ascertain the veracity of the statement of the complainant. The said investigator enquired with the local people and came to know that inmates of the insured vehicle raised quarrel with proprietor of Belari Rice Mill who was badly bitten and the driver thereafter ran away with the vehicle. The driver, thereafter, dashed a bicyclist and further Hundai I20 car and finally got stuck against railway barricade. The mob attacked the car and damaged the same with bricks and sticks. The police came to the spot and rescued the vehicle. It is alleged by the OPs that the complainant had made false and fraudulent statements and was guilty of suppression of material facts. The OPs, as such, have repudiated the claim.
Point for Decision
- Whether the OPs have been justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the claim as prayed for? If so, to what extent?
Decision with Reasons
We have travelled over the documents filed by both the parties. Admittedly, the OPs had insured the interest of the complainant in vehicle bearing registration no.WB – 12/D 0801 vide Private Car Package policy no.2011 – 301401 – 14 – 1000741 – 00 – 000 for the period 13-10-2014 to 12-10-2015. The claim as we find has been repudiated on the basis of the surveyor and private investigator deputed from the side of the OPs. It is alleged that the complainant suppressed the material fact and the fact is the driver and the boarders of the insured vehicles were gheraod by the public and when the car dashed the proprietor of one Belari Rice Mill and the police arrived at the spot and rescued the inmates of the car. We are afraid neither the surveyor nor the investigator has been examined in this case as corroborative witnesses to the alleged incidents. None of the local people also gave up to support the version of either the surveyor or the investigator. On the contrary we find that one Abhranil Ghosh, Director of the complainant company lodged a GD with the IC Burdwan P.S. on 25-11-2014 a day after the incident. It is also not given to understand to us whether any enquiry was made by the local P.S. to prove into the matter and unveil the actual fact of the incident. There is also no police report to support the version of the insurance company and that of the surveyor and the investigator. Moreover, from the terms and conditions of the policy itself it appears that rioting is also included for loss or damage to the vehicle insured. We think that the insurance company has no valid reason for repudiating the claim of the complainant.
Let us now come to the question of quantum of the claim, the complainant is entitled to. From the documents on record we find that surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,90,481/- on the basis of estimate provided by the repairer but as per pleading of the complainant the complainant has stated incurred expenses of Rs.2,65,000/- towards repair. We also find that after repair of the vehicle no opportunity was given to the surveyor to finalize the quantum. We find that the complainant has filed a receipt totalling Rs.1,79,424/- including VAT for the repairment of the vehicle i.e. Rs.1,70,880/- excluding VAT. So, we think that the complainant is entitled to such amount after deduction of sum amount on non-standard basis in respect of depreciation cost of the vehicle and as well as the deduction of respective parts
In result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs.
The OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,70,880/- with 20 percent deduction thereof on non-standard basis in respect of depreciation cost of the vehicle as well as deduction of parts value during repair with 9 percent interest thereon from the date of this order within 30 days from the date of this order.
OPs are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- for causing harassment and mental agony apart from litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within the stipulated period.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution and in that event complainant will be liable to pay an amount of Rs.100/- per diem to be paid to this Forum till full and final satisfaction of the decree.
