Ld. Advocate(s)

                   For Complainant: Makbul Rahaman

                   For OP/OPs : Joydip Mitra

Date of filing of the case                  :12.08.2020

Date of Disposal  of the case            :30.11.2023

Final Order / Judgment dtd.30.11.2023

          The gist  of the case  of the complaint is that  the complainant had a   vehicle bearing no. WB57B 9171 Chassis No.MAT466420E3G16465,          Engine No.B591803241G63387327 insured  with the OP No.1 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Kolkata vide policy no.334027/31/20/004821, period of Insurance from 19.09.2019 to 18.09.2020.     The said  vehicle  is the only earning source of the complainant  to maintain      his livelihood.  The aforesaid  vehicle met with  an accident on 17.12.2019           and it was informed  to the OP No.1 Shriram General Insurance Company     Limited. The complainant  sent his vehicle  to Rohan Engineering  Workshop Gobindapur, Post Office Plassey, District Nadia. Thereafter the OP NO.1 appointed a surveyor  to assess the loss. The said  Rohan Engineering Workshop gave  an estimate  to the complainant  for Rs.2,02,860/-. The complainant got repaired the said vehicle  and gave  a bill  to the said Rohan Engineering Workshop for Rs.8,500.00+31,910.00+14,690.00+28,350.00+9,280.00+49,050.00+19,473.20+18,000.00= total Rs.1,79,253.20 which was  paid by the complainant. Thereafter,  the complainant  submitted  all the  bills along with      all relevant documents and filled up  claim form  to the OP No.1 through      surveyor  of the OP No.1. Subsequently,  the complainant  requested to the     OP NO.1 and OP NO.2 for settlement of his claim as soon as possible but the OP No.1 did not settle the claim. On 18.06.2020 the complainant  shown  the status  of his claim  which is actually no claim  but there is no claim.  The OP NO.1 did not send  any letter regarding  no claim. Thereafter, the complainant  contacted  with the OP No.1 over phone  but they did not  explain to the complainant  as to what is the ground  for no claim.  Thus  the OP NO.1 intentionally  and cleverly treated the claim of the complainant as “no claim.” So the present case is filed. The cause of action for the present case arose on and from 18.06.2020 and thereafter each and every day.  The complainant  therefore prayed for an award for Rs.1,79,253.20 being  actual claim amount, interest at the rate of 12% on the claim amount, from the date of accident  dated     17.12.2019, payment  of Rs.50,000/- for loss and damages  and mental pain and agony. The complainant prayed for an          award for the aforesaid  relief.

The OPs contested  the case by filing  W/V wherein  they denied  the          major allegation  by filing W/V. The positive defence case of the OP No.1 in brief is that the complainant  approached  the OP No.1 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited in the engine of his vehicle.  The OP NO.1 explained the terms and conditions to the complainant  and being satisfied the   terms and conditions the complainant  obtained the vehicle insurance policy bearing no.334027/004821(Motor Commercial Vehicle  Package Policy for securing his vehicle being No.WB57B 9171). Thereafter, the complainant intimated  the claim with the OPs for the said compensation.  The claim  of the complainant was duly processed  by the OP No.1 Shriram Insurance Company Limited  by this way  of appointment of surveyor  and loss assessor. On receipt of the survey  report the complainant  came to know  that a sum of Rs.97,000/- was ascertained  as actual  loss  after deducting applicable depreciation and as per policy terms and conditions. The insured  suppressed the actual cause of accident. Upon scrutiny  of documents  of the insured, it was found  that the documents  like proof  of private carriers, permit of the  vehicle, last loaded material  details, dealer bills, NCB confirmation and FIR copy  were pending from the  insured. The OPs insurance company  sent several letters  to provide  the said document to the complainant  but he did not respond. Due to non-submission of documents  the OPs closed the claim as no claim. The OP No.1 challenged the case as not-maintainable  and bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder  of necessary parties. The OP No.1 claimed that  the case is liable to be dismissed  with cost. OP No.1` denied  almost all the allegations  by filing W/V wherein  they made out a defence case  to the effect that the complainant  filed the case for wrongful gain  and extortion  of money  from the  OP No.1. The OP No.2 approached  to the complainant  for purchasing  the policy  under Shriram General Insurance Company  Limited  in the house  of the complainant  and at the same place. The complainant  filled up the   proposal  form  and sending the same. The complainant  also paid Rs.26,959/- to the  OP No.2 at Village Gobindapur, Post office Plassey, P.S. Kaliganj, District Nadia. After  receiving  the premium  OP No.2 deposited  it to the office of the OP No.1 and after  receiving the said premium  Insurance Policy  was issued  and handed over  to the complainant  by the OP No.2.  So, the OP NO.2 claimed that the  case is liable to be  dismissed with the cost.

          The respective  conflicting pleadings of both the parties  led this        Commission  to ascertain  the following points.

Points for determination

Point No.1

          Whether the case is maintainable  in its  present form and prayer.

Point No.2

          Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief  as prayed for.

Point No.3

          To what other relief if any the complainant is entitled to get.

Decision with Reasons

Point No.1

          The OP challenged the case as not maintainable  on the ground  that            the case is bad for defect of parties.

          But the OPs could not specify  as to who others are  the necessary      parties to this case. Both the  insurance company  and its agent are  made       parties  to the case. So, there is nothing  to show that  the case is bad for  defect of parties.  Both the parties  to this case  reside  within the territorial   jurisdiction  of this Commission and the amount of claim  also false  within    the  pecuniary jurisdiction  of this Commission.  Accordingly,  having  considered the pleadings  of the parties  and the evidence  on the case record the Commission is of the view that the case is maintainable in its present           form  and prayer.

          Accordingly,  point no. 1 is answered  in favour of the complainant.

Point No.2 & 3

          Both the points are  very closely  interlinked with  each other  and as           such  these are  taken up  together  for brevity  and convenience  of   discussion.

          The complainant Samiul Islam in order to establish the case  adduced          both the oral  evidence  by filing  affidavit in chief  and documentary     evidence.  The complainant  proved  the following documents:-

1) Annexure-1 is the Certificate  of Registration.

2) Annexure-2 is the policy of vehicle  bearing no. WB57B 9171.

3) Annexure-3 is the estimate given by Rohan  Engineering  Workshop for           Rs.2,02,860/-.

4) Annexure-4 is the bill for repairing for Rs. 8,500/-.

5) Annexure-5 is the bill for repairing dated 28.01.2020 for Rs.31,910/-.

6) Annexurte-6 is the bill for Rs.14,690/- for repairing dated 13.01.2020

7) Annexure-7 is the bill for repairing  for Rs. 28,350/- dated 07.01.2020.

8) Annexure-8 is the bill for repairing  for Rs.9,280/- dated 09.01.2020.

9) Annexure-9 is the bill for Rs.49,050/- dated 17.01.2020.

10) Annexure-10 is the bill for Rs.19,473.20 dated 10.01.2020.

11) Annexure-11 is  the bill for Rs.18,000/- dated 02.01.2020.

12) Annexure-12 is the online claim status information given by the OP as no claim.

          The opposite parties  denied the claim  of the complainant on the       ground that there is no claim as the complainant failed  to provide the         documents  asked  for.

          The complainant  challenged the said refusal  of the OP.

          Ld. Advocate for the complainant  argued  that  the OP never   demanded any document  from the complainant.  The complainant  never      receive any letter  from the OP and there is  no document  with the OP to    establish that the OP served  the said letter upon the complainant.

          It is fact that the OP did not file any specific  document to show  that          the said letters were  served upon the complainant  but the main point  for      consideration is that a surveyor  was appointed  for the purpose of          ascertaining  the claim of the complainant  and the surveyor  submitted  a         report in favour of the complainant. As per  the final survey  report the     actual loss assessed  is Rs.97,000/-.

Now, the main point  for consideration is whether the said permit  of the vehicle  was valid  during the relevant  period.  Ld. Advocate for the complainant  filed several permits  of the disputed  vehicle  where  from it is revealed that the permit  of the vehicle  was valid during the relevant  period. The OP filed the surveyor reports where from it is  also revealed that the surveyor assessed  the loss to the tune of Rs.97,000/- with a note, “please up to date  the PSR report  with complete documents  and your observation on urgent basis.”

          After analysing  the entire  documents  of both the parties it is crystal clear  that  the  OP company  finally assessed  the loss for a sum of        Rs.97,000/-. But there is nothing  within the  case  record to show that the        claim of the complainant was repudiated by the  OP company.

Ld. Defence Council  further argued  that the complainant could not           prove  the actual cost incurred by the said Rohan Engineering. The bill         submitted by the complainant are different  bills  of different companies. So, due to lack of submission of documents  being pending the complainant is not entitled  to get the relief.

          Having  considered  the documents  filed by the complainant in the   case record  it is found that the complainant incurred several expenses  with      different repairing  company  but since the entire bill was not actually    incurred  in respect of  Rohan Engineering, so, the total  claim of the           complainant should be  reduced  on the basis  of the actual  loss assessed  by           the  OP company.

          Ld Defence  counsel  for the OP further argued  that  the permit a      relates from  2020  to 2024, but the actual accident took place  in December,         2019.  After scrutiny  all the permits  filed by the complainant it appears that     the complainant  had valid permit  during the relieved period so the claim      cannot repudiated  on the plea that the complainant had no permit at the           relevant time.

Ld. Defence Counsel  referred  to a decision reported in  Volume IV (2005) CPJ 115 (NC) wherein  it was held that the respondent is not entitled  to any amount under  the policy since  he had no  valid permit at the relevant time           of the date of the accident.

The case law is not applicable since  the complainant filed  document to show that he had valid permit at the relevant. So, the complainant  is entitled to  get the actual loss  assessed by the  surveyor.

          In the backdrop  of the aforesaid  assessment  of evidence  and          observation made herein above the Commission  comes to the findings that          the complainant  is entitled to the relief to a limited extent  along with  compensation  for harassment  and mental pain and agony.

          Point  No. 2 &3 are accordingly answered  in affirmative and decided         in favour of the complainant.

          Consequently  the complaint  case succeeds on contest with cost.

          Hence,

                    It is

                                                Ordered

that the complaint Case No.CC/40/2020 be and the same  is allowed  on contest  with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) against the OPs jointly and severally.  The complainant  do get an award  for a sum of Rs.97,000/- (Rupees ninety seven thousand) along with  interest at the rate of 8% per annum  from the date of filing of this case till the date of its realisation, Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) for the compensation for mental pain  and agony  and     harassment against the OPs. Both the OPs are jointly or severally  directed to  pay Rs.1,22,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty two thousand) to the complainant  within 30 days  from the date of passing the  final order  failing  which the entire award  money shall carry  an interest  at the rate of 8% per annum  from the date of final order  till the date of its realisation.

Dealing Assistant to note in the trial register.

The case is accordingly disposed of.

Let a copy of this final order be supplied to both the parties at free of costs.                  

Dictated & corrected by me

 ............................................

                PRESIDENT

(Shri   HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)                              ................ ..........................................

                                                                                                                          PRESIDENT

                                                                                            (Shri   HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)

I  concur,

  ........................................                                                 

          MEMBER                                                                

(NIROD  BARAN   ROY  CHOWDHURY)