IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 111/S/2014.                            DATED : 30.06.2016.    

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

                      MEMBERS              : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA &                       

                                                              SRI PABITRA MAJUMDAR.

COMPLAINANT             : SRI PRABIR KUMAR CHATTERJEE,  

                                                              Panchanan Sarani, Ram Krishna Jote,

                                                              P.O.- New Rangia, P.S.- Matigara, Siliguri,

                                                              Darjeeling – 734 013.

O.P.               1.                      : NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,  

   Regd. Office : 3, Middleton Street,

   Post Box No.9229,

                                                               Kolkata – 700 071. 

                                                              Also at :

  Hill Cart Road, Ganesh Ram Compound,

  Mahananda Para, Siliguri,

  Darjeeling – 734 001.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Santanu Chakraborty, Advocate.

FOR THE OP No.1                         : Sri Kanak Lal Kundu, advocate.

__________________________________________________________________________

J U D G E M E N T

Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.

The complainant’s case in brief is that he purchased a scooter from Annapurna Automobiles, and it was duly insured with the OP for the period from 29.09.2012 to 28.09.2013.  On 21.02.2013, the complainant met with an accident resulting in damage to the scooter.  The complainant was admitted to hospital for treatment for the injuries sustained in the accident.  On 03.05.2013, the complainant intimated the OP in writing about the accident, and pursuant to the advice of the OP, he submitted all the required documents to process his claim under the insurance policy.  However, the complainant received a letter dated 31.12.2013 from the OP informing him that his claim was closed since he did not file the required documents.  The complainant claims that his insurance claim was denied unjustifiably, and he further claims that the OP was required to issue a letter of sanction to Annapurna Automobiles for proceeding with the repair of the vehicle. 

Contd......P/2

-:2:-

The complainant accordingly filed this case praying that the OP be directed to settle the repair bill with Annapurna Automobiles, and to ensure the delivery of the scooter to him, and he prays for some other reliefs as well.     

The OP has contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant against him.  It is positive version of the OP is that the OP did not get any document to cause inspection of the vehicle and re-inspection of the vehicle after repairing was made.  The OP admitted the certificate of insurance of the complainant.  After getting the claim, the matter was referred to Surveyor and the surveyor finally submitted report assessing loss of Rs.16,923/-.  Whereas the complainant submitted a claim before this Forum of Rs.31,245/-.  It is also positive case of the OP that on several occasions, OP sent letter to the complainant regarding statement of cost of repairing for re-inspection of the vehicle.  But complainant did not make cooperation with OP.  Accordingly, after three reminders, the OP closed the claim as they did not get the documents which were necessary for settlement of claim.  Accordingly, as per OP, it is the complainant, who is responsible for not making co-operation of settlement.  Accordingly, it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.  

Points for determination

1.       Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?

2.       Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

Decision with reason

          Both issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.

To prove the case, the complainant has filed the following documents:-

1.       Tax-invoice marked and annexed as Annexure A.

2.       Certificate of insurance Annexure B.

3.       Letter dated 03/05/2013 Annexure C.

4.       Letter dated 14/05/2013 Annexure D.

5.       A copy of the estimate of repair is annexed and marked as Annexure E.

6.       Letter dated 31/12/2013 Annexure F.

7.       Letter dated 31/05/2014 Annexure G.

OP has filed the following documents :-

Contd......P/3

-:3:-

1.       Certificate of insurance of Motor Cycle/Scooter bearing Policy No.1506000/31/12/6200002685 issued in the name of the complainant along with Motor Cycle/Scooter Insurance “B” Policy containing the terms, conditions exclusions and limitation etc.

2.       Letter dated 10.05.2013 issued by the OP to the Surveyor with a copy of the complainant.

3.       Survey report dated 12.07.2013 submitted by Mr. Satadal Saha Choudury. 

4.       Letter 18.07.2013 issued by the OP to the complainant.

5.       Letter dated 09.10.2013 issued by the OP to the complainant.

6.       Letter dated 26.11.2013 issued by the OP to the complainant.

7.       Letter dated 31.12.2013 issued by the OP to the complainant.

8.       Postage book dated 21.10.2013 & 16.12.2013 of Dispatched register of OP.    

          Complainant has filed evidence in-chief on oath.

          OP has filed evidence in-chief.

          Complainant has not filed Written Notes on argument.

OP has filed Written Notes on argument. 

Ld. advocate of the complainant has filed following principles of law :-

1.       VOL. IV (2009) CPJ 445 Orissa State Commission.

2.       IV (2010) CPJ 38 Supreme Court Of India.

3.       VOL- I (2009) CPJ 6 Supreme Court Of India.

4.       VOL – IV CPJ 15 Supreme Court of India.

5.       VOL - II (2014) CPJ 373 National Commission.  

It is admitted position complainant’s vehicle was insured.  It is admitted position that vehicle was repaired.  It is also admitted position that complainant did not file actual expenditure certificate of repairing, save and except only a Xerox copy of Annexure-E.  In absence of any acceptable and reliable cost of repairing certificate, this Forum believes the admitted amount of OP which has been made by the appointed surveyor of OP and that amount is Rs.16,923/-. 

We have gone through the records and considered the materials on record and we are opinion that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.16,923/- for repairing cost of the vehicle.

The complainant is further entitled to get 10,000/- towards litigation cost.

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence, it is

                     O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.111/S/2014 be and same is hereby allowed on contest in part against the OP with cost.

Contd......P/4

-:4:-

The complainant is entitled to get repairing cost of Rs. Rs.16,923/- from the OP. 

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost from the OP. 

The OP is directed to pay repairing cost of Rs.16,923/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant within 45 days of this order.

The OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for litigation, within 45 days of this order.

Failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded sum of Rs.16,923/- from the date of this order till full realization. 

In case of default, the complainant is at liberty to execute this order through this Forum as per law. 

Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.

       -Member-                       -Member-                              -President-