Order No. 25 Dated 29-07-2015.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant is the owner of a private car bearing regn. no.WB-06B/5934 (Ford Fiesta Model 1.6). The said car was insured with o.p. vide policy no.VP005107190001000 valid from 7.9.09 to 6.9.10 covering the interest with regard to the user of the said car of the complainant. A copy of the said policy has been annexed by complainant with the petition of complaint as annex-A.
Complainant further stated that the said car met with an accident on 28.6.10 in the District of West Midnapore under Dantan P.S. The accident was duly reported in the said P.S. vide G.D.E. No.1410 dt.29.6.10. A copy of the said GDE has been annexed by complainant with the complaint petition as annex-B. Complainant further stated that after removal of the damaged accidental car from the said spot he intimated the facts to o.p. and thereafter sent the damaged car of o.p’s authorized repairer garage for repairing of the damaged car at Kolkata.
Complainant further stated that upon receipt of loss intimation from the complainant, o.p. provided him a motor claim form for submitting the details of the accident and the relevant particulars along with the estimate of loss from the repairer towards the cost of repairing of the accidental damaged car by appointing a surveyor and a loss assessor to asses the loss of the complainant incurred due to the accident. On receipt of such claim form from the complainant, o.p. appointed a surveyor to assess the actual loss of the complainant’s damaged car. A copy of the estimated loss provided by the authorized repairer has been annexed by complainant as annex-C with the petition of complaint. Thereafter complainant stated that after survey of the damaged car by the surveyor appointed by o.p. the complainant gave instruction to the repairer to carry out the repairing works of the damaged car. Complainant stated that after completion of the survey work the surveyor appointed by o.p. did not provide him any survey report as to confirmation of the quantum of loss. After a great deal of persuasion complainant failed to obtain any survey report from the surveyor in respect of confirmation of quantum of loss assessed by the surveyor in respect of the estimate provided to the repairer. Complainant further stated that after completion of the survey work the representative of o.p. orally informed him to carry out the repairing works of the damaged car and the cost of such repairing works shall be reimbursed by o.p. directly to the repairer. Complainant further stated that the repairer informed the complainant that the car is ready for delivery after repairing of the same and to make payment of Rs.2,70,000/- which was incurred by them towards repairing of the same. The repairer also informed the complainant verbally that they do not have any additional accommodation to keep the said car in their garage after repairing of the same.
Complainant further stated that ultimately complainant paid Rs.2,70,000/- to the Victoria Motors Pvt. Ltd. of Victoria Ford, 1693/A, Laskarhat, EM-Bypass, Kolkata-39 under their receipt no.2166 dt.14.2.11. A copy of the said receipt has been annexed by complainant with the petition of complaint. It appears from the said receipt that complainant has paid the said amount to them in cash. Complainant submitted that in spite of having valid insurance with a total coverage Rs.6,19,400/- o.p. company did not disburse Rs.2,70,000/- which is within the limit of insurance and within the very coverage of the insurance period. Under such circumstances, complainant filed the case before this Forum with the prayers contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
O.p. appeared before this Forum by filing w/v and contested the case. Ld. lawyer of o.p. in their w/v under para 4 alleged that complainant tried to make out the case in respect of the accident which is nothing but a misrepresentation of the material fact as has been stated by complainant to o.p. while lodging the claim regarding such date and time of the accident. Ld. lawyer of o.p. stated that the car met with an accident on 25.6.10 and not on 28.6.10. In this context, ld. lawyer of o.p. stated that a case is pending before the Ld. 7th Additional District Judge, Alipore between one Mr. Jyoti Singh with the same o.p. wherein they have stated that the car was met with an accident on 25.6.10 and not on 28.6.10 and he argued that the case made out by complainant is fabricated since the accident could not happen of the same car on 25.6.10 ad 28.6.10 since complainant in the instant case stated that the car met with an accident on 28.6.10. As such, ld. lawyer of o.p. argued that the instant case be dismissed with cost.
Decision with reasons:
Upon considering the submissions of both the parties and on perusal of the relevant materials on record this Forum observed that o.p. failed to file any copy of the certified copy or certified copy of the case pending before the Ld. 7th Additional District Judge, Alipore to ascertain whether the averment made by o.p. is tenable. Besides, this Forum observed that admittedly the accident of the car met on 28.6.10 at the place stated hereinabove and accordingly, GDE was lodged in the local P.S. and surveyor assessed loss of the damaged car due to the accident and complainant informed the details of the accident to o.p. in due time and the damaged car has been repaired in the authorized service station of o.p. and for which complainant had to incur Rs.2,70,000/- for repairing of the same and complainant had paid the said amount to the repairer and ultimately get back his car after duly repaired. Needless to mention the said car is insured with o.p. having the value of the insured of Rs.6,19,400/- and even then o.p. did not disburse Rs.2,70,000/- to complainant. This Forum further observed that o.p. failed to file any cogent document to disbelieve the case of the complainant mere averment without document is not tenable in the eye of law. As such, this Forum holds that o.p. made deficiency of service to the complainant being service provider and complainant has substantiated his case and is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. O.p. is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy thousand) only towards the cost of repairing of the damaged car in question incurred by complainant and is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
