JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he is the owner of a vehicle being No.WB-25E 6624 under Model Sumo Gold LS BS-IV/NOM TATA Motor Private Limited and the said vehicle was insured under the National Insurance Company (NIC) and during the validity of the said insurance policy while he was going to the nearest garage on 15.12.2012, the vehicle made an accident with a bus under Route No. 91 when two persons who are the staff of Jogesh Roy was there.  But complainant was not on the spot, but getting information immediately rushed to the spot and found that his supervisor SK Nazir was seriously injured and driver Md. Khalid though injured but not severe in nature.

          Subsequently complainant reported the incident before the local Police Station intimating the fact and thereafter the vehicle was taken over by the authorized repairing centre for its repairing on the same day and the matter was processed for repairing through Ghosh Brothers Automobiles (India) Pvt. Ltd. and though the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company and accident took place within the valid period of Insurance policy, no step was taken either by the Insurance Company or by the Ghosh Brothers Automobiles (India) Pvt. Ltd. though it was assured that the vehicle shall be repaired at the cost of the insurance company.

          Fact remains Insurance Company and Ghosh Brothers never reported the matter to the complainant to file any document.  But document relating to the said vehicle complainant deposited the same to Ghosh Brothers Automobiles with receipt.  However complainant was not given any seizure list while taking out the vehicle by the Ghosh Brothers Automobiles (India) Pvt. Ltd. and at the time of accident both drivers had their valid license and due to lapse of so many period, Ghosh Brothers Automobiles demanded money for repairing the vehicle and also rent for preserving the car, but regarding cost of repairing of the vehicle, they have not explained properly as to why the repairing cost is not paid by the Insurance company.

          Fact remains that the complainant is new in the line of the car business having no idea of the process of the insurance claim and about repairing cost and its payment but in the meantime he approached before the claim manager for disbursing the estimated cost for repairing the vehicle by a specific application as per advice by the Ghosh Brothers Automobiles, but nothing has been done as yet, though complainant approached before the claim manager by a legal notice dated 06.05.2013 and after receipt of the legal notice the insurance company has not taken any step and no step was taken by the Ghosh Brother Automobiles also.  But Ghosh Brother Automobiles intimated that since documents are not sufficient for sanctioning the cost of repairing of the vehicle, the complainant should refund the damaged vehicle by paying garage charge @ Rs.200/- per day and claiming Rs.2 lacs for repairing cost and in the circumstances complainant has prayed for redressal against the Insurance Company and Ghosh Brother Automobiles.

          Against the above complaint op/Insurance Company by filing written statement submitted that as per policy conditions op did not pray for any claim against such damage or repairing cost and also did not file any claim application along with necessary documents and papers and further complainant did not inform the op about the accident of the vehicle along with documentary evidences and by that act complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy as such the complainant is not entitled to get any benefit.

          Further op/National Insurance Co. submitted for what reason Ghosh Brother Automobiles is demanding rent for car preserving and complainant is not entitled to get claim for violation of the policy conditions and complainant shall have to prove that he submitted any claim application form along with necessary papers and informed about the accident and at the same time he reported the matter to any surveyor and prayed for appointment of any surveyor till today and no such application is filed.  So, there was no laches on the part of the National Insurance Co. and for which the complaint should be dismissed.

          On the other hand Ghosh Brother Automobiles did not appear before this Forum and did not contest this case though notice was duly served upon them.  In the above circumstances the case against op no.3 Ghosh Brother’s Automobiles is heard exparte and contested against other op nos. 1 & 2.  Now we shall have to consider the entire consumer dispute for its final decision.

                                                        Decision with reasons

          On proper study of the complaint and written version and also considering the entire complaint, it is clear that complainant no doubt is the holder of the policy under the op in respect of the vehicle being No. WB-25E-6624 under the op and the said policy was valid from 03.08.2012 to 02.08.2013.  but it is proved beyond any manner of doubt from the complainant’s own version that complainant did not file any claim application along with necessary document for settling the claim.  It is also proved that accident took place on 15.12.2012 but it was not reported to the insurance company.  Further complainant did not file any application praying for appointment of surveyor to assess the loss or actual repairing cost.  Further op no.3 the authorized service centre of TATA Motors also did not file any such document before the insurance company for appointment of any surveyor and for assessing cost of loss.

          Fact remains that op no.3 has not repaired the said vehicle but complainant is very much idle in this regard and he did not take any step.  But in the complaint he has tried to convince that it was the duty of the service centre to collect it and he filed all documents to the said op no.3 and invariably op no.3 did not act properly for which claim was not settled.  Considering the above fact and circumstances including the written version of the op, it is clear that complainant is very aged person perhaps for own livelihood he purchased the vehicle and insured it and he is not aware of the entire process and filing claim etc. against any damage or loss.  But truth is that complainant ultimately reported the matter by a notice dated 06.05.2013 and that was received by the op but op did not respond and considering all the above fact, we find that for laches of the op no.3, complainant cannot be penalized.

          Fact remains the vehicle has not yet been repaired by the op no.3 because loss assessment has not yet been made by the insurance company.  In the above circumstancs we find that op nos. 1 & 2 must have to take such proper step to arrange for appointment of surveyor and to assess the loss and to collect such report from the op no.3 how many parts are required for proper repairing of the said vehicle and for making it roadable and insurance company shall have to collect all the papers by sending a letter to the complainant and give him a chance to file the claim application form and so that the complainant cannot be any way deceived by the insurance company when valid insurance policy is there.  In the light of the above observation we are directing the op nos. 1 & 2 the insurance companies to appoint one automobile expert engineer to assess the loss and to make the said damage vehicle road able and to determine how much amount is required for repairing after proper inspection of the said vehicle which was lying in the custody of the op no.3 and submit report to the op nos. 1 & 2 and thereafter op nos. 1 & 2 shall have to send report of the surveyor along with application claim form with a direction to the complainant to file required documents which shall be noted in the said letter of op nos. 1 & 2 in detail so that complainant may file all those necessary documents as required by the op nos. 1 & 2 for settling the claim and in such a manner op nos. 1 & 2 shall have to settle the claim of the complainant positively. 

          There is no question of repudiation of claim by the op nos. 1 & 2 under any circumstances,

          Accordingly the complaint succeeds in part and in view of the above findings.

          Hence, it is

                                                              ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against op nos. 1 & 2 and same is allowed exparte against op no.3 with cost of Rs.1,000/- each against each of the ops.

          Op nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally are directed to appoint one automobile expert surveyor to assess the loss of the complainant’s vehicle which was insured under the op at the premises of op no.3 as the vehicle is lying in the custody of the op no.3 and the said automobile expert surveyor after assessment of the loss shall submit report within one month from the date of inspection to the op nos. 1 & 2 and op nos. 1 & 2 shall send the letter to the complainant along with application claim form including surveyor’s report asking the complainant to submit the claim application form duly filled in along with required documents and detail of documents shall be mentioned in the said letter so that complainant may file paper as per requirement of the op nos. 1 & 2 and thereafter op nos. 1 & 2 shall have to settle the claim of the complainant in respect of damage of the vehicle which faced accident on 15.12.2012 and the entire matter shall be disposed of by the op nos. 1 & 2 positively within two months from the date of this order failing which op nos. 1 & 2 shall have to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the said damaged vehicle as repairing cost.

          If the order of the Forum is not complied by the op nos. 1 & 2 in that case op nos. 1 & 2 shall be imposed punitive damages @ Rs. 250/- per day till the full satisfaction of the decree.

          Op no.3 is hereby direct not to take any service charge when it was not repaired by the op no.3 as yet.  On and from the date of issuance of fit certificate of the vehicle by the op no.3 the op no.3 may charge garage charge @ Rs.50/- per day till the date of taking delivery of the same by the complainant.  Op No.3 shall complete repairing within one month from the date of inspection of Surveyor.

          Complainant is also directed to follow the order and will be more vigilant about the matter.  So that no further damage may be caused by the complainant or by the op nos. 1, 2 and 3, in any case op nos. 1, 2 & 3 are found violating the order in that case penal action shall be started against them for which further penalty may be imposed as per Section-27 of C.P. Act, 1986.