Smt. SAHANA AHMED BASU, MEMBER.
The case of the complainant, in short, is that the complainant has taken an insurance policy for his private car bearing no. WB-20G-3603 being Policy No. 154400/31/12/6100003270 which was valid up to 19/12/2013 and total IDV of Rs.1,80,000/-. The complainant also took necessary permission to drive the vehicle from RTO Alipore, South 24 Parganas issued by the from the Motor Vehicle Deptt, Govt. of W.B. as per WBMV Act 1979 as amended on 1989, upon payment of Rs.32,520 also taken emission test certificate from the Pollution Control Board , Government of West Bengal . The said vehicle met an accident on 11/05/2013 with a mini bus being Registration No. WB-29-4249 at Bagnan More , Howrah , locally known as Paper Mill Stoppage and the car was damaged. The complainant immediately went to lodge a GDE to the nearest Police Station, but the said P.S. refused to lodge any GDE. Then the complainant informed the incident to the OP and the OP advised him to send the said car to their service center namely Star India Agency Private Limited, Rupnarayanpur, Mecheda, Purba Medinipur and the complainant did the same. The complainant wrote a letter to the I.C., Bagnan P.S., Dist. Howrah on 15/05/2013 which was duly received with necessary stamp of the said P.S. A claim of Rs.3,49,000/- was lodged by the complainant to the OPs on 13/05/2013 and 16/05/2013 for making necessary of the charge. The OPs sent their Surveyor and the loss assessed by the said Surveyor to the tune of Rs. Rs.1,50,000/- but the Ops. did not pay any farthing to the complainant till date. The complainant sent several e-mails to the OPs. but the OPs remain unturned. Finding no other option the complainant approached before this Commission for getting reliefs.
OPs contested the by filing W/V contending inter alia that the case is wholly misconceived , groundless , false , untenable in law besides being extraneous and irrelevant. Submission of the OPs is that the complainant has taken a insurance policy of his private car being Policy No.154400/31/12/6100006270 valid from 19.06.2012 up to 18.06.2013 vide registration mark of the vehicle is WB-20G-3603 .the complainant met an accident on 11/05/2013 and send the damaged vehicle to OP’s service center. A claim of Rs.3,49,00/- was lodged by the complainant for repairing charges to the OPs knowing that the IDV of the said vehicle is Rs.1,80,000/-. Mr. Shantanu Das Ghosh, the Surveyor of the OPs’ company estimated the Approx net Assessed Loss , i.e. after deducting depreciation , policy excess and salvage value , to be around of Rs.1,00,000/- prior to dismantle the vehicle, which after dismantling might have risen further by 10% to 15% . The surveyor informed the complainant about the aforesaid amount vide letter dated 05/07/2013 and further requested the Complainant for consent to dismantle the vehicle without which the service center could not start repairing. After inspection of the vehicle and after calculating the amount of loss, the surveyor of the OPs stated that the claim to be settled on repair/replacement basis and not on Net of Salvage basis / Total Loss Basis and the same was informed to the complainant. Again on 02/08/2013 the surveyor of the OPs requested the complainant sending letter for consent to dismantle the vehicle within seven days from the date of receipt of the letter, failure to do which, it would be considered that the complainant is not at all interested about the claim and an independent survey report will be submitted and the claim might be treated as closed. The surveyor submitted the Preliminary Survey Report to the OPs vide letter dated 13/09/2013. The surveyor of the OPs and the personnel of the STAR INDIA AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED, Rupnarayanpur repeatedly requested the complainant for consent to dismantle the vehicle without which the service center could not start repairing. But the complainant failed to give consent for dismantling of the said vehicle. Therefore, no claim can remain pending for an indefinite period, and for such non action and non-cooperation on the part of the complainant, the claim was closed. Said vehicle is still in the custody of the STAR INDIA AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED, Rupnarayanpur and the complainant has totally abandoned his vehicle since 2013.
To prove their case both the parties have adduced evidence on affidavit. They have also filed questionnaires and reply vis-à-vis relevant documents in support of their respective cases. BNAs are also filed by both the parties. We have examined the entire materials on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
The admitted fact is that the complainant insured his private car bearing no. WB-20G-3603 to the OPs and the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.1,80,000/-. Admittedly the said vehicle met an accident on 11/05/2013 and send the damaged car to the STAR INDIA AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED which is the service center of the OPs . The fact also remains that the complainant lodged a claim of Rs.3,49,000/- to the OPs and the Ops send their surveyor who estimated the amount of the loss . On perusal of the documents on record furnished by the complainant it is found that thesaid policy was valid from 19/06/2012 to Midnight of 18/06/2013. But in the complaint petition the complainant mentioned that the said policy was valid up to 19/12/2013. The complainant admitted that when he informed the OPs about the said accident they asked him to send the car to the abovementioned service center. The material on record reveals that the OPs appointed a surveyor namely Mr. Shantanu Das Ghosh to assess the loss and the surveyor informed the complainant vide letter date 05/07/2013 that Approx net Assessed Loss to be around Rs.1,00,000/-. Here, also we found that the complainant mentioned the said amount as Rs.1,50,000/- in the complaint petition . These misleading information on the part of the complainant is highly condemnable. Ld. Advocate for the OPs submitted that the surveyor of the OPs requested the complainant to give consent to dismantle the said damaged vehicle vide letter dated 02/08/2013 within seven days from the date of receipt of the said letter, failure to do which it would be considered that the complainant is not at all interested about the claim and an independent survey report will be submitted and the claim be treated as closed. Photocopy of the Preliminary Survey Report furnished by the OPs goes to show that the report was placed on 13/09/2013 in detail. More so, photocopies of emails furnished by the OPs also revealed that the OPs and the personnel of the said service center repeatedly requested the complainants for consent to dismantle the vehicle without which the service center could not start repairing.It is argued by the Ld. Advocate for the OPs that the complainant did not agree to settle the claim on Repair/ replacement basis and wanted the claim to be settled on NET of Salvage basis .
Ld. Advocate for the OPs submitted that as per STANDARD FORM FOR PRIVATE CAR PACKAGE POLICY, the liability of the company shall not exceed for partial losses , i.e. losses other than Total loss/ Constructive Total Loss of the vehicle – actual and reasonable costs of repair and / or replacement of pars lost / damaged subject to depreciation as per limit specified . Photocopy of the STANDARD FORM FOR PRIVATE CAR PACKAGEPOLICY annexed with the E/chief of the OPs shows that the page 3 of the said document it is clearly mentioned that:
IDV shall be treated as the ‘Market Value- throughout the policy period without any further depreciation for the purpose of Total Loss (TL) / Constructive Total Loss (CTL) claims.
The insured vehicle shall be treated as a CTL if the Aggregate cost of retrieval and/ or repair of the vehicle , subject to terms and conditions of the policy , exceeds 75% of the IDV of the vehicle.
All the documents on record submitted by the OPs reveals that they did notrepudiate the claim , but treated it as closed which they informed the complainant vide letter dated02/08/2013 . As such, in our opinion neither the OPs are deficient in service nor they are indulged in any unfair trade practice.
On perusal of the documents furnished by both the parties it appears before us that there was a communication gap between the parties which barred the complainant to take any definite decision and led the OPs to treat the claim is closed. Admittedly and undoubtedly the OPs were ready to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant prior to dismantle the said vehicle . Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get the said amount as relief for the ends of the justice.
As such, the complaint case allowed in part.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OPs.
OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with the litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- within 30 days from the date of this order .
Liberty is given to the complainant to put the case in execution if the order is not complied.
