This is a case for Claim and Compensation.
The Complaint’s case in short is that the Complainant is the registered owner of the Vehicle No. WB 11A-5527. The said vehicle purchased on 17.12.2003 under the hypothecation of H.D.F.C. Bank through its agent M/s Dulichand Finance and Leasing Ltd. The said vehicle was under the cover of Insurance Policy No. 512603/31/03/02279 and during the period of continuance of the Insurance the said vehicle met with an accident on 30.05.2004 at Gohiraghati on NH-6 P.s. Joshipur Dt. Mayurbhanga, Orissa for which the said vehicle was badly damaged. After the accident, a police case at Joshipur P.S. has been registered vide F.I.R. No. 0060 dt. 30.05.2004. The information of the damage of the vehicle was duly informed to the Insurance Company on 31.05.2004. The extent of damage was surveyed and under supervision of Mr. V. Chandro Sukhoran- Surveyer and valuer of Insurance Company who assessed the damage amounting to Rs. 3,06,000/- (approx.) on the company authorized service centre of manufacturing company Monaco Sales Pvt. Ltd. Assessed the damage to the extent of Rs. 4,50,000/- excluding labour charges, towards engine lathegole and Turbo charges, the Cahssis, Front Axile and back dala is beyond repair. The claim has been duly made with all necessary documents on 24.02.2005 the Insurance Company with a copy to the Divisional Manager, Haldia Divisional Office. But the Insurance Company made no arrangement for payment for repairing of damaged vehicle. The hy7pothecation installment is lying unpaid since the date of accident. Moreover, the vehicle is lying in damaged condition at a garage in Kolkata whose garage charge is daily Rs. 150/- and the Garage Keeper is demanding his charge which is remaining unpaid. That for the inaction of the Insurance Co. the financer demanded Rs. 2,88,987/- from the petitioner as installment, late payment and service charges. The petitioner loses his business of Rs. 42,900/- p.m. since the accident of the vehicle and the Insurance Co. is liable to pay all costs and damage. The Complainant demands in total Rs. 16,99,987,70 p. from the OP.
The OP contested the case by filing a written statement wherein he denied the material allegation of the cas3e and stated that the prayer of the Complainant is improper. He also stated that Mr. V. Chandro Suklhoran othe surveyer and valuer of the insurance co. finally assessed the cost or damage to the tune of Rs. 2,65,507,00. On the basis of loss assessment note prepared after joint inspection with Eich7u Service Engineer and in discussion with the work in charge of the repairer who verbally accepted the same and such submission of final loss assessment was delayed by the surveyer due to slow process of the repair who was also not co-opsated by the Complainant as stated by the Surveyer and the repairer. The OP stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP as such the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Points for decision
On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties the following points are taken up for consideration.
- Is the case maintainable?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Is the Complainant entitled to any relief as prayed for?
Decisions
Point No.1- It is admitted by the OP that the vehicle of the Complainant is duly insured under him. So, the Complainant is the Consumer under him, as such the case is maintainable at this stage on point of Consumer.
Point No. 2- In this point we are to decide whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It is evident from the W/S filed by the OP that the vehicle of the Complainant met an accident on 30.05.2004 for which the OP appointed Surveyor Mr. V. Chandro Sukhoran on 05.07.2004 for assessment of loss. The complainant stated in his complaint that the loss assessed by the value if Rs. 3,06,000/- (approx), and the company authorized Service Centre Monoco Sales Pvt. Ltd. Assessed the damage to the extent of R. 4,50,000/- But from the Valuer, Mr. V. Chandro Sukhoran’s report we find that he filed report case in provisional and the other is final. Naturally final report is to the considered. The final report Ext. A clearly shows that the loss assessed ( is Rs. 2,57,507.00 less Salvage charge Rs. 8,000.00) i.e. net loss is Rs. 2,57.507.00 approx. Further, the letter dt. 26.03.2005 of the Surveyer addressed to the Monoco Sales Pvt. Ltd. Ext. B clearly stated that loss assessed by him has not objected by the Monoco Sales Pvt. Ltd. This is evident from the endorsement of the Monoco Sales Pvt. Ltd. In the letter to the suervdeyer dt. 26.03.2005. It is a fact that loss assessed by the Surveyer has not been paid to the Complainant. The assessed amount lies with the Insurance Co. The Complainant is entitled to have the assessed amount along with interest thereon. Further, from the letter of Monoco sales pvt. Ltd. Dt. 28.03.2005 Ext. C addressed to the Complainant we find that the complainant was not intimated fro repairing the vehicle.
The Complainant claimed for Rs. 42,000/- p.m. totaling Rs. 5,10,000/- for loss of business. But not a single paper filed by the Complainant regarding his income from the vehicle. Regarding income from the vehicle, it cannot be ascertained without any paper whether the income from the vehicle was running in profit or loss. As such, we are not in a position to assess income of the vehicle at this stage.
Further, the Complainant claimed garage charge Rs. 150/- per day. But not a single paper of the garage owner filed in this regard. Moeover, the letter with Monoco Sales Pvty. Ltd. Ext. D shows that he wrote to the Complainant to remove the vehicle or repair where the vehicle was kept. There is no whisper about the garage charge. So, we are not in a position to assess the garage charge separately at this stage.
Again the Complainant claimed for Rs. 2,88,987.00 p. on demand of financer. It is the duty of the Complainant to meet the demand. As and when the Complainant is less interested in repairing the vehicle as mentioned in the letter Ext. C, therefore can we say that the OP will be liable for the same.
Further, the Complainant for Rs. 8,36,000/- as insured declared value. As and when the valuer assessed Rs. 2,57,507.00 then the Complainant can not claim insured value separately. Bui the Complainant can claim interest over the assessed value.
The OP has neither paid nor offered the assessed amount to the Complainant at any point of time. Moreover, there is some delay. By the Insurance Co. in appointing Surveyer. So, this is no doubt, to some extent deficiency in service on the part of the OP which led the Complainant to file this case. So, the Complainant is entitled for interest as well as litigation cost.
On the basis of forgoing discussions and materials on record, we say that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Thus this point is disposed of accordingly.
Points No.3- On the basis of above discussions, we say that the case succeeds in part and the Complaint is entitled to have Rs. 2,57,507,00 along with interest 12% p.a. from the OP over the amount from the date of filing this case litigation cost Rs. 3,000/-.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is allowed in part against the OP. The Complainant is entitled to have Rs. 2,57,507.00 along with 12% interest p.a. over the amount from the date of filing the case till the date of payment and also Rs. 3,000/- as litigation cost from the OP. The OP is directed to pay the same by one month from this date failing which the Complainant is at liberty to execute the same through this forum after expiry of the period mentioned above.
