IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

                                         CASE No.  CC/105/2021.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                Date of Disposal

: 16.12.21                                        28.12.21                                      17.09.24

Complainant: Md. Samiul Haque

S/O Late Md. Sohrab Ali,

 Lakshminagar, PO-Dhuliyan,

PS-Samserganj, Pin-742202

-Vs-

Opposite Party:  Manager, Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.

                              53 A, Rafi Kidway Road,

                   Park-Street, Kol-16

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                        : Khairul Alam

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1            : Prabir Banerjee

   Present:    Sri Ajay Kumar Das………………………….......President.     

         Sri. Nityananda Roy……………………………….Member.

FINAL ORDER

   Sri.ajay kumar das, presiding member.

This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

            One Md. Samiul Haque (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Manager, Sriram General Insurance Co. (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

    The material facts giving rise to file the complaint are that:-

                 The Complainant is the son of Md. Sohrab Ali since deceased. The said Md. Sohrab Ali son Kamiruddin of Lakshminagar, PO-Dhuliyan, PS-Samserganj, Dt. Murshidabad, Pin-742202 being the unemployed have purchased a vehicle bearing registration No. WB-57C/4768, ENG No. CXPZ132504, Chasis No. MB1KACFD1GPWV3433, Multiaxle Goods VCH with a payment for national permit of Rs. 1,65,000/- through State Bank of India on 07.12.18 for his livelihood. After purchased my client purchased motor commercial package vehicle policy No. 334033/31/20/000668 for the period 04.11.19 to 03.11.20 from the OP and runs the said vehicle to meet up all his expenses and maintain his family from the said vehicle. Subsequently Md. Sohrab Ali died leaving behind his son Md. Samiul Haque the Complainant.

                 On 08.01.20 the said vehicle meet an accident near at Sidli police station, Dist. Chiranj BTAD, Assam at about 4-45 am and immediately informed the matter to the Sidli police station bearing GDE No. 147 dt. 08.01.20 as well as the office and the Sidli police station have taken the said complain and made police report on 16.01.20 and the OP has appointed the surveyor for settlement of the claim process of the matter and the Complainant have taken the vehicle from the P.O. to ‘’Naba Auto Body Builder’’ at Dhuliyan, Murshidabad for repair and after repairing of the said proprietor of Naba Auto Body Builder made accident estimated bill of Rs. 5,49,600/- with proper voucher and as per the advice of OP, the Complainant handed over all the required documents for settlement of the claim.

                 The Complainant tried his level best to cooperate regarding settlement of the claim, but due to Covid-19 pandemic situation some time have lost for further communications with the office but send mail ‘’we are going to close this claim as no claim’’ on 19.05.20 however settlement mail shows ‘’Documents pending’’.

                 The OP therefore in default of providing dues of payment of insured amount, have violated the terms and condition and natural justice, furtherance causing great agony and financial loss to the Complainant as he is unable to ply the said vehicle for his livelihood purpose. The Complainant on multiple occasions, approached the OP in order to resolve the issue through peaceful settlement and avoid any legal resort, However the OP failed to adhere to the repeated request, manifesting malafide intention to extort money which amounts to gross negligence and harassment towards the Complainant.

                 The Complainant finding no other alternatives filed this instant case praying for directing the OP for payment of Rs. 5,49,600/- for repairing the damaged vehicle in favour of Complainant and to pay Rs. 50,000/- for initiate such legal action including mental pain and agony.

                 OP files written version contending inter alia that the case is barred by the principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence and the case is false, fabricated and unbelievable.

                 OP stated that the Complainant have not informed the matter to the OP immediately after the incident, so it is very much difficult on the part of the OP to estimate  loss of the alleged vehicle. The OP have appointed Mr. Arfan Box Mollah the surveyor and the surveyor estimated the liability of claim amounting to Rs. 1,68,775/- The present OP have issued 4 letters to Mr. Sohrav Ali on 13.04.20, 21.04.20, 05.05.20 and 12.05.20 for providing the documents stated in the said letter but the Complainant has not produced any documents to the OP and lastly this OP sent a closer letter on 19.05.20 that due to non-availability of documents, the OP has no other alternative but to close the claim as ‘’No Claim’’, so the OP has no negligence to meet with the situation.

On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper  adjudication of the case :

Points for decision

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons:

Point nos.1,2&3

All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity discussion.

Ld. Advocate for the OPsubmits before this Commission at the time of hearing of argument that OP appointed Mr. Arfan Box Mollah, the surveyor and the surveyor estimated liability of claim amounting to Rs. 1,68,775/-. Such being the position, they are always ready and willing to pay Rs. 1,68,775/-.

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant files a petition stating that they are agree to accept Rs. 1,68,775/-.

Heard both sides. Peruse the materials on record. Ld. Advocate for both the parties fairly submit before this Commission that the dispute has been amicably settled and as such the OP is willing to pay Rs. 1,68,775/- to the Complainant and the Complainant is willing to accept the said amount of Rs. 1,68,775/-.

Keeping in mind the submissions advanced by the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the instant case should be disposed of in terms of the agreement as stated by the Ld. Advocates for both sides.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 16.12.21 and admitted on 28.12.21. This Commission 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 is allowed.

     Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is        

Ordered

that the complaint Case No. CC/105/2021 be and the same is  allowed and without any order as to costs.

        The OP is directed to pay Rs. 1,68,775/- ( Rupees One lakh Sixty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy five only) to the Complainant, Md. Samiul Haque within 60 days from the date of this order i.d the said amount of Rs. 1,68,775/- will carry interest @ 6% p.a. 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.