IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/187/2016
Date of Filing: 29.12.16 Date of Final Order: 30.01.19
Complainant: Priya Basu (Mondal)
D/o, Ajit Bosu
W/o, Sumanta Kumar Mondal
Vill-Bazarpara, PO-Radharghat
PS-Berhampore town, Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742187
-Vs-
Opposite Party: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Berhampore Divisional Office,
37 A,R.N. Tagore Road, (1st floor)
PO-Berhampore, Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742101
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Sadhan Kumar Saha
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri. Ajay Kumar Bhattacharyya
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Priya Basu (Mondal) (herein after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (herein after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant is the owner of a Maruti Omni Ambulance being registration No. WB57A/9957 and it was insured under the OP during the period from 30.06.15 to 04.03.16. The ambulance met an accident on 01.07.15 at about 7 p.m. on its way from Farakka to Jangipore near Ahiran Bridge under Suti PS. when the driver tried to save the life of a pedestrian, one lorry coming behind pushed in high speed and damaged the ambulance. The vehicle was badly damaged and one job estimate was issued by Speed Wheel Service Centre, a Maruti authorized service station, estimating Rs.3,65,095.97/- as cost of repair. The Complainant claimed the said amount of repair but the Divisional Manager of the OP made a mistake in appreciating the loss. The Complainant has asserted that one Rudra Sankar Dey, a Mechanical Engineer assessed a loss at Rs.1,70,000/- only. The OP has not paid any amount of loss to the Complainant and the Complainant has filed the case praying for a direction upon the OP to pay a sum of Rs.3,65,095.97/- as cost of repair and Rs.10,000/- as cost of mental agony and harassment and to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of accident and cost of litigation.
The OP contested the case by filing written version on 16.05.17 contending that the case is not maintainable and the case is barred by law of limitation. It is the specific case of the OP that there is no uttering in the policy that the OP will remembrance the insured amount to the extent of Rs.3,65,095.97/-. In the repudiation letter dated 09.08.16, the OP has asserted that there was no deficiency in service. The Complainant has violated section 157(2) of the M.V. Act as the transfer of ownership of the vehicle was not done within stipulated period of 14 days from the date of transfer. It is misconceived to mention that the loss was assessed at Rs.1,70,000/- . That as per prayer of the previous insured the policy was transferred in the name of the Complainant for the rest period of the policy i.e. from 30.06.15 to 04.03.16. The RTO, Murshidabad issued a letter to the investigator that the vehicle No. WB57A9957 was transferred on 31.10.14 but as per section 157(2) of the MV Act, 1988 the transferor should apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of Insurance and Policy described in the certificate in his favour and the Insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the Policy of Insurance in regard to the transfer of Insurance. The OP has rightly repudiated the claim vide its letter dated 09.08.16. The OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On the basis of the above versions following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
- Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP, as alleged ?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Point no.1
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as she hired services of the OP for consideration.
The Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the Complainant is not a consumer. On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986.
Point No.2
The Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.
On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Both the points are thus disposed of.
Point Nos.3&4
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the vehicle met an accident on 01.07.15 during continuance of insurance policy under the OP and the Speed Wheel Service Centre estimated a sum of Rs.3,65,095.97/- for repair of the vehicle. He argues that the Complainant is entitled to get the entire amount from the OP in terms of the policy. It is further argued that one Rudra Sankar Dey, surveyor, assessed the loss at Rs.1,70,000/- but the OP repudiated the claim on the ground that the transferee failed to apply the transfer of ownership of the vehicle in terms of section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act within 14 days from the date of transfer to the insurer for necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the service in his/her favour. He contends that the OP cannot repudiate the claim of the Complainant on the sole ground that the policy was transferred in the name of the Complainant on 30.06.15 after a gap of 242 days from the date of transfer in the registration certificate. He submits that the OP has deficiency in service and the Complainant is entitled to get relief in this case.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case as the claim has been repudiated by the O.P. vide letter dated 09.08.16 on the ground of violation of section 157(2) of the MV Act. He argues that the surveyor assessed the loss of Rs.1,70,000/- subject to insurer’s final approval and acceptance but the insurer did not approve the surveyor’s assessment as the Complainant has violated section 157(2) of the MV Act. He prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
Admittedly, the vehicle met an accident on 01.07.15 when the insurance policy was valid . Admittedly, the surveyor Rudra Sankar Dey assessed a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- as loss subject to insurer’s final approval and acceptance and the acceptance note was agreed by the Complainant (Insured) on 06.09.15. The main contention raised by the OP is that the OP repudiated the claim on 09.08.16 for violation of section 157(2) of the MV Act. Admittedly, the transfer has been affected in the name of the Complainant before the date of accident and the OP is aware of all the facts. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim on 09.08.16 for violation of section 157(2) of the MV Act is baseless. The Sum assured was Rs. 2,00,000/- and the Complainant agreed to accept the acceptance note dated 06.09.15 by putting her signature. Therefore, we think that the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,70,000/- from the OP as per surveyor’s report dated 06.09.15. We find that the surveyor has submitted its report within sixty six days from the date of accident. We also do not find any reason to settle the claim for a long time.
Considering the facts and circumstances, we think that the Complainant is also entitled to get litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- from the O.P. .
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 29.12.16 and admitted on 09.01.17 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case succeeds.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No.CC/187/2016 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The OP is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- as total loss on salvage basis to the Complainant for damage of the vehicle within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the OP shall have to pay interest @10% per annum till realization of the entire amount.
The OP is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant by 45 days from the date of this order.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President.
Member President.
