Orissa

Cuttak

CC/87/2020

Purna Chandra Biswal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,The New India Assurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

M Baug & associates

01 Jul 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.87/2020

          Sri Purna Chandra Biswal,

           S/O: Padmanav Biswal,

           Resident of Village;Subara,

           P.O/P.S:Jajpur Road,

           Dist:Jajpur.                                                                    ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1. The New India Assurance Company Limited,

                        A Govt. of India Undertaking,

                        Represented by its Managing Director,

                        New India Assurance Building, 87, MG Road Fort,

                        Mumbai-400001(Maharastra).

 

2. Divisional Manager,

The New India Assurance Company Limited,

Jajpur Road Division Branch,

Jajpur Road,At/PO:Jajpur Road,

Dist: Jajpur.

 

3. Sky Automobiles, represented by its

Managing Director,At/PO:Bhanpur,

                        NH 5,Cuttack-753022.                                                 ...Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:   23.04.2021

Date of Order:  01.07.2023

 

For the complainant:                   Mr. M.Baug,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P no.1 & 2:                  Mr. A.A.Khan,Adv. & Associates.

                 For the O.P no.2:                         Mr. S.C.Das,Adv. && Associates.              

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased a Maruti Suzuki Breeza Car on 21.4.2018 whose cost was Rs.9,55,000/- vide Regd. bearing No.OD-02-AU-0059.  He had also obtained loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the S.B.I, Vaishya Nagar Branch, Choroda, Jajpur Road, Dist:Jajpur and is paying E.M.I @ Rs.15,000/-The said vehicle of the complainant was insured with O.Ps no.1 & 2 with ‘0’ depreciation.  He had also paid the second insurance premium of Rs.18,109/- and the period for insurance was extended from 21.4.2019 to 20.4.2020 vide the policy no.5507003119030000393.  On 19.10.2019 the said car of the complainant had met with an accident for-which F.I.R was lodged and the O.Ps no.1 & 2 were intimated accordingly on the same day.  The vehicle was taken to the workshop of O.P no.3 for its repair.  The claim was registered vide no.226/2019-20.  The repairing cost as made by O.P no.3 was of Rs.6,86,552/- which the complainant knew on 23.10.19.  The body of the said car being completely damaged required replacement which was estimated to be of Rs.2,12,040/-.  The O.Ps no.1 & 2 had deputed a surveyor who had assessed the loss of the complainant and had submitted a report indicating total cost of repairing and replacement of parts to be of Rs.3,94,737/-.  A letter was issued to the complainant by O.P no.2 for finalisation of his claim on 10.12.19 but no such settlement could be arrived.  The complainant had received a sum of Rs.3,94,737/- which is the pre-dismantled estimate cost whereas the estimated repair cost of O.P no.3 as regards to the Maruti Breeza Vitara Car of the complainant was of Rs.6,86,552/-.  The complainant had deposited an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 24.12.2019 by paying the said amount through RTGS to O.P no.3.  When his claim was not settled, the complainant had issued legal notice to O.P no.2 on 16.7.2020 for settling his claim. The vehicle of the complainant is lying exposed to the sky and some of the parts had rusted also due to the rain, air and sun.  The complainant being a super-class contractor had spent a sum of Rs.4,76,960/- towards his taxi charges till 31.10.2020.  The complainant has come up with this case claiming the repairing cost of his Maruti Vitara Breeza car from the O.Ps no.1 & 2 together with compensation for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment.  He has also claimed from the O.Ps his taxi charges till 31.10.20 amounting to Rs.4,37,960/- and further he has claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards his litigation expenses.

Alongwith his complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.         Having not contested this case, O.P no.3 has been set exparte vide order dt.26.04.2022.  However O.Ps no.1 & 2 have contested this case wherein they have mentioned that case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed with cost.  According to the O.Ps no.1 & 2, inspite of repeated requests the complainant had not submitted the cash-memos and bills for which his claim could not be settled.  They admit about the Private Car Enhancement Cover Policy bearing no.5507003119030000393 in favour of the complainant covering the risk of his Maruti Suzuki Vitara Breeza car bearing Regd. No.OD-02-AU-0059 effective from 21.4.2019 to 20.4.2020 with certain terms and conditions.  They also admitted about such car of the complainant to have met with an accident on 19.10.2019.  After getting such intimation they had deputed Surveyor, Er. Susil Kumar Sarkar for conducting survey and for assessing the loss.  According to the O.Ps no.1 & 2, during course of survey inspite of repeated requests, the complainant has failed to dismantle his car and carryout the repairing work rather, had approached the surveyor at his office on 18.6.2020 for demanding settlement of his claim on total loss basis and since because the assessed loss do not qualify 75% of the IDB of Rs.7,50,000/- accordingly the Surveyor had communicated the same vide his letter dt.12.7.2020 to the complainant.  He had also submitted his survey report on 5.8.2020 but the complainant had not contacted the surveyor since then.  The O.Ps had sent letter through Regd. Post with A/D dtd.10.11.2020 to the complainant intimating him that his claim for total loss is not qualified as per the Company guidelines and had thereby requested him to proceed with the repairing  work of his vehicle and thereby for settlement of his claim.  Thus, it is consistent prayer of the O.Ps no.1 & 2 that the case of the complainant being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed with cost.

O.Ps no.1 & 2 have also filed several copies of documents in order to prove their stand.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written versions of the O.Ps no.1 & 2, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

The complainant has filed his evidence affidavit but the same when perused, it is noticed that the same is only the reiteration of the complaint petition as filed by him.

The Surveyor-cum-Loss Assessor,Er. Susil Kumar Sarkar has also filed his evidence affidavit on behalf of the O.Ps no.1 & 2 in this case, which, when perused, it is noticed that he has repeated the same pleadings about the assessment done by him towards the damaged vehicle of the complainant bearing Regd. No.OD-02-AU-0059 as per the direction of the O.Ps no.1 & 2 and that, the claim of the complainant on 18.6.2020 at his office to settle the claim on total loss basis does not qualify the 75% of the IDB i.e. Rs.7,50,000/-.  Accordingly, he had written about the same to the complainant on 12.9.2021 but the complainant had never tried to contact him till 27.7,2021.  According to him, the mode of settlement of the claim of the complainant on repairing basis comes to only Rs.3,74,232/- whereas on total loss basis the approximate liability of the Insurance Company comes to Rs.5,30,500/-.

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

After going through all the copies of relevant documents as available in this case record and the pleadings of either sides in this case, it is notice that the Maruti Suzuki Vitara Breeza Car of the complainant which met with an accident on 19.10.2019 is not disputed.  The complainant alleges that his claim was not settled though he had preferred “zero depreciation policy” vide Policy No.5507003119030000393 which was effective from 21.4.2019 to 20.4.2020.  According to him, the Sky Automobiles had raised repairing cost of Rs.6,86,552/- towards his damaged car whereas the surveyor has given a report of loss of Rs.3,74,232/-only.  It is also not in dispute that the complainant while insuring his Maruti Suzuki Vitara Breeza car had given an estimation of Rs.6,86,552/- and as to under what circumstances, the surveyor assessed only a sum of Rs.3,74,232/- and by ignoring the balance amount is not understood.  The O.P side had not whispered a word about the same.  It is the urge of the complainant that when he had insured his vehicle preferring ‘0’ depreciation cost, and when his vehicle had met with an accident and also when the authorised service centre had given an estimation of Rs.6,86,552/-, it is the O.Ps who are to bear the said cost and provide his vehicle to him at an early date for enabling him to conduct his daily journey as and when required.  Thus, by not doing so this Commission finds the O.Ps guilty for the same and accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the complainant of this case.

Issues no.i &iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                              ORDER

Case is allowed on contest against the O.Ps no.1 & 2 and exparte against O.P no.3.  The O.Ps no.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable here in this case.  Thus, the O.Ps no.1 & 2  are directed to immediately reimburse the estimated cost towards the repairing of the Maruti Suzuki Vitara Breeza Car bearing Regd. No.OD-02-AU-0059 to the tune of Rs.6,86,552/- after deducting the amount advanced by them towards the repair of the damaged car of the complainant together with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of 14.12.2019 till the total amount is quantified.  The O.Ps no.1 & 2 are further directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for his mental agony and harassment and also to bear his taxi expenses to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-.  The O.Ps no.1 & 2 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the litigation cost of the complainant.   This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 1^st day of July,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.  

                                                                        

                                                                                                           Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                     President

 

                                                                                                          Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                       Member