West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/120/2016

Motahar Khan, S/o Hazi Istahar Khan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, Bajaj Allianz Gen INS Co Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Kr Acharya

04 Oct 2023

ORDER

 

Shri Sudip Majumder- President-in-Charge.

            The complainant/petitioner files this case U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The fact of the case in brief is that the petitioner/complainant, Motahar Khan, S/o.- Hazi Istahar Khan, permanent resident of Vill.- and P.O.- Kaithanpur, P.S.- Dubrajpur and Dist.- Birbhum, purchased an insurance policy being No. 0G-16-2466-1803-00000292, dated 04/02/2016, for his vehicle being No. WB-53-B-6971. The policy was valid from 04/02/2016 to 03/02/2017, IDV Rs. 25,66,000/-.

            It is the further case of the complainant that on 23/03/2016 the vehicle met with an accident near Seorakuri under P.S.- Md. Bazar, District- Birbhum and same fact was duly intimated to the OP side.

            Thereafter, as per instruction of OP side, the complainant lodged an insurance claim being claim No. OC-16-2401-1803-00003230, Registration No. of said vehicle being No. WB-53-B-6971 along with Bill from MAMA ENGINEERING WORK, D.V.C. MORE, PANDAYESWEAR, BURDWAN, bill printed on 27/04/2016 amounting to Rs. 4,17,027/- as cost of repairing.

         OP appointed their surveyor and assessed the damage at Rs. 3,85,559.25/-, vide Approval  (Annexture-1) printed on 07/06/2016.  

Further, OP issued a letter to the complainant dated 08/07/2016 and stated that “Please refer to the above mentioned claim, as per the policy terms and conditions and report of an external IRDA license surveyor our liability works out for Rs. 1,90,000/-. Thus, OP did not agree to pay the entire claim of the complainant.

                                                                                                                       

 

                                                                                   

Hence, after finding no other alternative the complainant is compelled to file this case before this Forum/Commission for proper reliefs and prays for:-

1. To pass order directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 4,60,000/-(Four lakh sixty thousand only) as insurance claim of the damaged vehicle.
2. To pass order directing the OP to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on Rs. 4,60,000/-(Four lakh sixty thousand only) since the date of claim preferred till realization of the claim.
3. To pass order directing the OP to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand only) as cost.
4. To pass an order directing the OP to pay adequate compensation.
5. Other relief/reliefs.

OP side stated in para 16 of their written version as …. “That the statement made in Para 8 of the complaint to the effect that after all the relevant and going through the survey the damage was roughly assessed at Rs. 3,85,559.25 on 27/04/2016 is admitted by the OP Insurance Company Limited.”

OP side further stated in para 17 of their written version as …. “That the statement made in Para 8 of the complaint to the effect that even the OP did not settle the claim as per survey report is denied by the contesting OP but the admitted the fact that OP is/was offering Rs. 1,90,000/- as fair value of damaged vehicle proper and genuine as per prescribed procedure.”

Thus the OP side admitted the fact of accident OP did not agree to pay the entire claim as filed by

the complainant. As per their final surveyor report the OP side agree to pay Rs. 1,90,000/- to the complainant.

Complainant’s side submitted evidence-in-chief. Both the parties submitted written notes on argument. Some documents have also been filed by the complainant’s side and compared with the original ones. Thereafter, respective Ld. Advocates for both parties made oral arguments in support of their case.

            Heard Ld. Advocate for the complainant.

            Considered.

            Perused all the documents.

Points for determination/Issues

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer as per definition of the term ‘Consumer’ of the C.P Act. ?
2. Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Op?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

 

 

                                                                                   

Decision with reasons

Point No. 1:

            In this case, the complainant purchased an insurance policy for his vehicle vide policy No. 0G-16-2466-1803-00000292 date 04/02/2016. Thus the complainant is a consumer under the OP member and the OP member is the service provider. Hence, the complainant is a consumer as per Sec. 2(1)d(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Point No. 2:

            Pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission as per Sec. 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is Rs. 20,00,000/-. OP/Bajaj Allianz Co. Ltd., has Branch office which is situated in Birbhum District i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission as per Sec. 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So, this Forum/Commission has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.

In this case, the cause of action arose from 06/08/2016 and the case has been filed on 21/09/2016 and as such it can be said that the complainant has filed this case within the statutory period of the C.P. Act, 1986 and as such the instant complaint is not barred by limitation U/S 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986.

Point No. 3:

It appears from the documentary evidence as available in the case record that the complainant purchased an insurance policy for his vehicle vide policy No. 0G-16-2466-1803-00000292 date 04/02/2016, for vehicle being No. WB-53-B-6971. The policy was valid from 04/02/2016 to 03/02/2017, IDV Rs. 25,66,000/-.

 The vehicle in question met with an accident on 23/03/2016 i.e. within the valid period of the said insurance policy. The complainant claimed Rs. 4,60,000/-(Four lakh sixty thousand only) as cost of repairing as it was shown in the bill of Mama Engineering Work printed on 27/04/2016. The amount of claim is also within the IDV i.e. within Rs. 25,66,000/-.

      OP side stated in para 16 of their written version as …. “That the statement made in Para 8 of the complaint to the effect that after perusing all the relevant papers and going through the survey report the damage was roughly assessed at Rs. 3,85,559.25 on 27/04/2016. This fact is admitted by the OP Insurance Company Limited.”

OP side further stated in para 17 of their written version as …. “That the statement made in Para 8 of the complaint to the effect that even the OP did not settle the claim as per survey report is denied by the contesting OP but the admitted the fact that OP is/was offering Rs. 1,90,000/- as fair value of damaged vehicle proper and genuine as per prescribed procedure.”

 

 

 

In this case OP side admitted the fact of accident. OP side roughly assessed the damage through

surveyor at Rs. 3,85,559.25/- on 27/04/2016. Thereafter, OP side reducing their assessment of damage through surveyor to Rs. 1,90,000/-. But the OP side failed to explain the actual reason of reducing the assessment of damage of the vehicle in question.

On the other hand the Complainant filed evidence-in-chief and written notes on arguments. OP side

did not file any evidence in support of their case. Only written version and written notes on argument have no value unless the contents thereof are established by evidence.

      The petitioner has proved the receipt amounting to Rs. 4,17,027/- granted by Mama Engineering

Work as repairing cost. The OP could not negate it anyway. So, the claim of the petitioner stands.

            From the above discussion, this Commission is of the view that the OP side did not agree to pay the entire cost of repairing as claimed by the complainant and cause shown by the OP side for repudiation of the said claim is baseless and vexatious one.

It is proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the aforesaid act of the OP members are amounting to deficiency in service as per Sec. 2(1) (g) of C.P. Act, 1986 as well as unfair trade practice as per Sec. 2(1) (r) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

Hence, from the above discussion it is proved that the complainant could be able to prove her case beyond all reasonable doubts.

Point No. 4:

From the documentary evidence as available in the case record it is crystal clear that the complainant is the beneficiary of the said policy.

As in this case, it is proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP members.

Hence, the complainant is entitled to get relief or compensation as prayed for.

Thus, all the points are decided in favour of the complainant.

Complaint is sufficiently stamped and proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

It is necessary to mention that the case is pending from 21/09/2016. Today is 12/10/2023, i.e. 7 years is the period of pendency. In this case, we observe that Ld. Advocate for the complainant appeared before this Commission days after days. So, we fix Rs. 10,000/-(Ten thousand only) as cost of litigation.

• We find in Chengalrayan Cooperative Sugar Mills Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2000) 10 SCC 213 it was held that “Interest ought to have been awarded from the date on which the claim was filed before the Forum.”
• We also find in Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. Vs. G. Harishchandra Reddy & Anr. (2007) 2 SCC 720 it was held that “Only 9% interest be awarded on refund matter.”

 

 

 

 

            In the instant case as per view of the Hon’ble Apex Court in several cases the interest will be given @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this case.

            In our opinion, 9% interest on insurance claim is enough as relief in forum of compensation. Hence, additional relief in form of compensation should not be awarded to the petitioner.

Hence, it is,

            O R D E R E D,

                                        that the instant C.F. Case No. 120/2016 be and same is allowed on contest with cost.

OP is directed to pay as insurance claim of the damaged vehicle Rs. 3,85,559/- (Three Lakh Eighty Five Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Nine Only) to the complainant along with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. calculating on and from 21/09/2016 (i.e. from the date of filing of this case) till realization.

          The OP is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) as cost of litigation to the complainant/petitioner.

The entire decree will be complied by the OP No. 1 within 45 (Forty five) days from this date of order, in default the complainant is at liberty to put this order to execution in accordance with law.

The instant case is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.