This appeal is directed against the final order delivered by the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Jalpaiguri dated 14/09/2017 in connection with CC/23/2017. The fact of the case in brief is that the appellant/complainant who happens to be the owner of a vehicle bearing registration no. WB71 2975 which has been insured by the National Insurance Company extended and renewed year to year.

On 02/04/2014 the said vehicle while coming from Madarihut side towards Birpara then on the road to avoid collusion with a vehicle coming from opposite side the vehicle of the complainant accidentally turned to its left and came down to the road side Kachha Path with Swampy Soil for which the vehicle was badly damaged. The damaged vehicle was then taken to a nearby reputed garage where the damage assessed to the tune of Rs. 57,900/- for replacement of damaged spare parts and the labour charges amounting to Rs. 85,600/-. The complainant registered a general diary before the concerned police station and raised a claim before the National Insurance Corp. on 08/04/2014 and the matter of accident was duly intimated to the insurer on 03/04/2014. The Insurance Company on the basis of information received from the complainant, appointed one surveyor Mr. S. Sarkar to assess the actual cost of repairing the damage of the vehicle who assessed Rs. 20,300/- which was not aggregable to the appellant/complainant who by a letter dated 27/08/2014 raised her protest against the estimation of damage prepared by the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company was sticked to his stand on the report of the surveyor and wanted to release only Rs. 20,300/- in favour of the complainant as repairing cost for the damage of the vehicle which was not acceptable to the appellant/complainant. So, she sent a lawyer’s letter to the insurance company and after receiving the said letter the insurance company informed the complainant that they have closed the file regarding the claim by treating it as “no claim” as because the complainant/insured could not file the related documents that is FIR in proper format, seizure list and mechanical report along with proforma claim application.

Being aggrieved with the refusal letter on the part of the Insurance Company the consumer complaint was registered seeking compensation Rs. 5,00,000/- including repairing cost and ors. as well as further prayer of litigation cost. The insurance company has contested the consumer complaint by submitting written version where in they stated that the complainant was asked to submit the certificate of completion of repair work of the damaged vehicle for deputing reinspection surveyor and few necessary documents which could not be supplied to the complainant in due time and for that reason, the file was closed treating as “no claim” and there was no final repudiation towards the said claim on the part of the Insurance Company and for that reason, the consumer complaint was not maintainable in present format. Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Jalpaiguri after hearing the case came to a conclusion that as the claimant/complainant could not produce the necessary documents, the Insurance Company had no liability to meet the claim of the complainant and for that reason, the case was registered in an immature stage and for that reason, the instant consumer complaint was dismissed.

Being aggrieved with this order of Ld. Forum this appeal follows on the ground that the Ld. Forum has failed to conceive the factual proposition of the case and also has committed errors in deciding the issues in a proper manner and the order of Ld. Forum liable to be set aside.

The appeal was registered in due time and notice to the respondent/insurance co. was served. The Insurance Company has contested the appeal by appointing Ld. Advocate B. Maitra to conduct the hearing of this appeal case. The appeal was heard in presence of Ld. Advocate of both sides.

DECISION WITH REASONS

There is no denial on the part of the Insurance Company that the vehicle in question was covered with insurance agreement at the time of accident and there is also no denial that the vehicle met with an accident within policy period. Within a day the accidental information was communicated on the part of the insured to the insurer. The Insurance Co. has closed the file of instant claim case on the ground that the complainant has failed to produce some material documents in due time and for that reason, they have treated the claim as “no claim”. Now at first, we shall have to look after as to what documents which were sought for by the insurance company from the insured. The insurance company has asked the complainant to produce the mechanical report, the formal FIR and the seizure list to prove the happening of the accident of the vehicle. But after going through the entire case record very carefully, we find that the accident was occurred without having any negligence on the part of the driver who was running the vehicle at the material point of time. The general diary clearly speaks that to avert a collusion with an opposite direction vehicle, the driver of the instant vehicle had to turn the vehicle to its left which ultimately came down to a rustic swampy village road causing the damage of the vehicle in question. No physical harm of any human body was held in the said accident and for that reason, the nearby police station did not register any specific case in connection with this accident as no human error was revealed. So, the question of seizure of the vehicle or mechanical examination of the vehicle by any mechanical expert was not necessitated on the part of the police. So, the complainant had no scope to produce the copy of formal FIR, mechanical report or seizure list in connection with this accident. The complainant simply moved the vehicle to a nearby reputed garage where the mechanic of the said garage estimated the cost for repairment and replacement of the spare parts to the tune of Rs. 57,700/- and for labour charges it was estimated to Rs. 85,000/- as cost. The complainant submitted the said quotation / assessment. The insurance company was not agreed with said estimation and appointed one Mr. Sarkar as IRDA surveyor to inspect the vehicle and to assess the damage. The surveyor appointed by the National Insurance Co. has assessed the damage to the tune of Rs. 20,300/- which was not agreeable on the part of the complainant and for that reason, the dispute cropped up which has ultimately came into the arena of consumer fora. Now, the question is when there is no possibility to submit formal FIR, seizure list and mechanical report on the part of the claimant then can she be blamed for not producing the said documents? The factual proposition of this case is that no human error was reflected in the alleged road accident and for that reason, police had no scope to register a criminal case and if there is no regular criminal case, the police has got no jurisdiction to seize the vehicle and for not seizure of the vehicle, there was no scope to have a MVI inspection of the said vehicle. The insurance Company has closed the claim case but not repudiated the same. Now, the question is whether closing the claim should be treated as complete repudiation on the part of the insurance company. The complainant claims that the report of surveyor was not proper one as because the estimation prepared by the surveyor was totally unethical and the actual damage of the vehicle could not be ascertained by the surveyor. On the other hand, the insurance company has totally relied upon the report of the surveyor and had no scope as per insurance rules to go by the estimation report submitted by the surveyor who was holding the license of IRDA at the material point of time. So, in our view, the loss sustained by the complainant should not be unattended by the insurer. On the other hand, insurance company has also some obstacle to rely upon the estimation of damage ascertained by a private agency who had no authority as per IRDA rules to assess the damage for a vehicle which is covered with insurance policy. So, the insurance company certainly has the liability to pay the damages of the vehicle to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 20,300/- as assessed by the surveyor Sandip Sarkar. On the other hand the insurance co. had no legal authority to close the instant claim case for want of some documents which had no existence at the material point of time. Certainly there was deficiency of service on the part of the insurance company though there was no formal repudiation. Therefore, for the ends of justice, the Commission thinks it fit that the Insurance Company shall have to pay the damage of the vehicle assessed by its surveyor S. Sarkar to the tune of Rs. 20,300/- to the claimant and for deficiency of service for not releasing the claim in due time another Rs. 20,000/- shall have to be paid by the insurance company. The claimant being a woman is suffering since 2014 for not getting proper relief from the insurance company and she had to engage Ld. Advocates to go through a strong battle with the insurance company and for that reason, she should be compensated at least by Rs. 15,000/- as litigation cost. So, after appreciating the factual proposition of the case, the Commission thinks that the observation of Ld. Forum suffers from some irregularities and for that reason, the order of Ld. Forum should be interfered in this appeal.

Hence, it is ordered,

That the appeal be and same is hereby allowed on contest without any cost. The order of Ld. Forum, Jalpaiguri dated 14/09/2017 in CC/23/2017 stands set aside. The National Insurance Co. i.e. the respondent of this case is hereby directed to pay Rs. 20,300/- as cost of damage of vehicle, Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and litigation cost of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant/appellant within 45 days from the date of receiving the copy of the order of this appeal failing which 9 per cent per annum as interest will be carried on over the total awarded money.

Let a free certified copy of order be supplied to the parties and Ld. D.C.D.R.F Jalpaiguri be communicated with this order.