Hon’ble Sri Rituraj Dey, Member
The present case has been filed by the complainant praying for a direction/order upon O.P./O.Ps to pay Rs. 1,23,888/- towards damage and repairing charges of the vehicle including towing charges, Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost along with interest @ 12% p.a. against the awarded amount.
The complainant’s case in a nutshell is that the complainant’s vehicle bearing Regd. No. WB 38V 4870 with Model of SWIF DZIRE VDI and insured under Ops, met with an accident near Bhagabanpur under Chatna P.S. in Bankura on 12/01/2015 when the complainant was returning to Purulia from Burdwan. To save a cattle (Bull) the said vehicle capsized in the field adjacent to the road where several iron pole was kept and during the capsize the vehicle ran over the said polls and for running over the polls, the
sock absorber of the vehicle was badly damaged and other parts attached to the wheel as well as engine of the said vehicle were also damaged. The complainant shifted the damaged vehicle from accident place to Purulia by hiring recovery-van from “Mishra & Kar Recovery Van Service” paying towing charges. The said vehicle was insured by an insurance policy with validity period from 09/12/2014 tp 08/12/2015. The complainant informed the O.Ps about the said accident on the next following day. According to the complainant, on 13/01/2015, A.K.Singh, the Branch Manager of the Insurance Company personally inspected the said vehicle and after inspection sent reply stating that the claim was not genuine and assigned reasons to that effect. In the said reply letter the O.Ps informed the complainant unless any reply was given to the O.Ps, the O.P./O.Ps will cancel the policy. The complainant collected an estimated cost for repairing the said vehicle from SWG Car World, Purulia.
O.P./O.Ps inspected the said vehicle and sent a letter to the complainant stating different opinion as well as statement about the said vehicle and accident and asked for a reply from the complainant mentioning a clause ‘cancel of policy’. The complainant became de-satisfied. Hence, the complainant has filed the instant case to the DCDRF, Purulia to get relief.
The O.Ps have appeared in this case by filing W/V supported by affidavit, wherein the O.Ps have stated that the complainant’s vehicle did not meet any accident on 12/01/2015 and no damage happened in respect of the said vehicle. The O.Ps have denied the statement made by the complainant about shifting of the damage vehicle from accident place to Purulia through recovery van. According to the O.Ps, the Branch Manager of the Insurance Company visited/inspected the said vehicle which was kept behind Manbhum Victoria Institution in Purulia town instead of SWG Car World. The Branch Manager took some photographs there. As the estimate of the vehicle was not submitted, so the claim form could not be issued and without submission of claim form no claim is entertained. According to the O.Ps, the vehicle was not fit to run on road as shown in the photographs taken by the O.Ps. On observation of the photographs it can easily be noticed that the vehicle was in a very poor condition. Having mentioned the statement in the written version the O.Ps have prayed for dismissing the complaint with cost.
None of the parties adduced any evidence but they have relied upon the averments mentioned in their respective pleadings which were supported by affidavit and the documents submitted by them before this Forum.
We have gone through the pleading of the parties and the documents submitted by them.
Points for consideration
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. /O.Ps?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief/compensation?
With an eye to above two points for consideration the discussions are mentioned below.
Decision with Reasons
Points No. 1 & 2:
Having perused the all documents on record especially Xerox copies of Regd. Certificate of the said vehicle, the certificate of insurance cum policy schedule, it appears to us that the complainant is the owner of the said vehicle (Reg No. WB 38V 4870) and obtained an insurance policy in respect of the said vehicle from the O.Ps with the validity period from 09/12/2014 to 08/12/2015. The complainant has mentioned about the accident happened on 12/1/2015 which was under the validity period of insurance policy. The complainant has filed two documents in support of the said accident, i.e. Money Receipt/Towing Bill of Mishra & Kar Recovery Van Service and the claim intimation of the said vehicle on 13/1/2015 to the Branch Manager, NIC, Purulia Branch from the complainant. The money receipt/towing bill filed shows no carrying recovery van number, no date and no signature of the concerned recovery van service. We do not find any other documents which can strongly support the complainant’s claim about the said accident.
It is true that the complainant intimated the O.P.s about the accident on 13/1/2015 by writing a letter and it is also true that after receiving the said intimation letter the O.Ps made an inspection by the Br. Manager of the NIC and sent an information on 02/04/2015 through a letter being Ref. No. 15053:AKS/Motor/Claim:2015.
In the letter of the O.Ps/Br. Manager, NIC the Br. Manager has mentioned about the condition of the said vehicle at the time of inspection. In this letter the Br. Manager/O.P has stated that the complainant could not informe the O.P. /O.Ps for the verification of the condition of the vehicle on spot. But we have observed that in the intimation letter of the complainant on 13/01/2015, the complainant requested the Br. Manager, NIC, Purulia to take necessary action and to do the needful to give him the claim in respect of the said vehicle. If spot survey is necessary for verification of the condition of the vehicle, then why the O.P/O.Ps did not take the necessary action and survey the spot in spite of complainant’s request as mentioned in the complainant’s letter.
The Ld advocate of the O.Ps has emphasized on the photographs taken by the said Br. Manager of NIC regarding the said vehicle. The Ld advocate also mentioned about the previous accident and its photographs. Having pointed out the photographs of the vehicle,the Ld advocate of the O.Ps have tried to prove that the complainant had attached the old damaged materials of the vehicle to the present vehicle to prove the said accident. According to the O.Ps, the said accident was not genuine and it was fabricated.
From the photocopies of the said damaged vehicle filed by the O.Ps, we find that the front portion of the said vehicle has truly been damaged and other parts are also affected.
The O.Ps did not visit the accident spot and did not make any investigation regarding the said accident though the complainant requested the O.P. /O.Ps to take necessary action to give the claim. The O.Ps simply made a routine inspection, took some photographs of the said vehicle and informed the complainant about the opinion of the O.P. /O.Ps mentioning the reason stated therein. Having gone through the photographs, the O.P. /O.Ps has / have assumed that no accident had taken place and the entire fact has been fabricated by the complainant. Without making any visit and investigation at the spot where the incident/accident happened, the O.P. /O.Ps has / have made a decision and informed the complainant their opinion. Here we find deficiency in service on the part of the O.P./O.Ps.
It is true that the complainant has filed a money receipt/towing bill of the Mishra & Kar recovery Van service without van number, date, and authentic signature but O.P./O.Ps did not make any investigation upon the said money receipt/towing bill to prove that the said document is false and un authentic. Here, we also find deficiency in service on the part of the O.P./O.Ps.
Having perused the intimation letter of the complainant addressed to the Br. Manager, NIC, Purulia on 13/01/2015 and the photographs and letter dated 2/4/2015 of the Br. Manager, NIC, Purulia regarding the said damaged vehicle, we have came to a conclusion that an accident had taken place and due to the accident the said vehicle of the complainant was damaged. The O.P./O.Ps has/have failed to submit strong, authentic and transparent evidence to prove that no accident happened on 12/01/2015 relating to the complainant’s vehicle and the damage of the said vehicle is false and fabricated. As the complainant had paid a healthy premium to the O.Ps to avail of an insurance facility and the O.Ps have not raised any objection regarding sanction of claim amount keeping in eye the previous claim amount and payment, the complainant is entitled to get relief.
Therefore, having considered the entire facts and circumstance we find no reason to hold that a vehicle once having sustained damage by an accident, can not once again meet with another accident and sustain damage. If second time accident is not impossible then it is obviously possible that it would sustain damage, no matter all most of similar in nature. Therefore, we find no reason to accept the proposition of the O.Ps that the accident as claimed by the complainant did not really happen specially when the O.Ps despite intimation did not take any action for spot verification about such accident. The O.Ps are therefore deficient and can not get rid of the contractual liability as per the terms of the policy.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the discussions made above, we are of the view that it would be justified to direct the O.Ps to pay to the complainant Rs. 1,23,888/- towards damage and
repairing charges of the vehicle including towing charges. Apart from that, the complainant is also entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- for litigation cost.
The above two points are, thus, disposed of with the above observations and findings.
Hence, it is,
ORDERED
that the instant case be and the same is allowed against the O.Ps on contest. The O.Ps are directed to pay jointly/severally Rs. 1,23,888/- ( One lakh twenty three thousand eight hundred eighty eight only) towards damage and repairing charges of the vehicle including towing charges to the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten thousand only) and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand only) within 30 (thirty) days from the date of issuing of this order, failing which the complainant shall have the liberty to execute this order in which case the O.Ps jointly/severally shall be liable to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- (Two hundred only) per day to the complainant chargeable from the date of issuance of this order till the compliance of this order in toto.
Let a copy of this judgement be supplied to the parties free of charge.
