The fact of the case of the complainant in a nutshell is that the complainant is a policy holder of National Insurance Co. no. being 153600/31/12/6100029455. On 22.10.2013 in the evening when the complainant along with her husband was travelling Chinsura towards Tribeni met with an accident at Bandel and the car was severely damaged. The husband of the complainant informed the fact to the D.O. of concerned General Insurance Co.Ltd over phone immediately after the accident and the D.O. instructed the husband
of the complainant till his reaching to the garage nothing should be done by the garage about the car. The D.O. Mr.Samb hu Babu visited the garage and inspected the victimized car on 24.10.2013 and took some photographs. On 25.10.2013 the said D.O. instructed to the husband of the complainant to meet him along with all documents with regard to victimized car and also with the estimate about the necessary repairing jobs and necessary parts from the authority of the garage. The husband of the complainant then met the D.O. , Sambhu Babu together with all documents and papers and duly filled in claim form of the Insurance company. On 28.10.2013 the garage authority further handed over some additional estimate for the victimized car and the husband of the complainant submitted the additional estimate to the OP/company on the said date. On 30.10.2013 the Surveyor , appointed by the Insurance company went to the garage and in presence of the husband of the complainant took photographs of the victimized car and filled up one form and instructed the husband of the complainant to put his signature on that form on behalf of his wife. On good faith the husband of the complainant put his signature on the said form given by the surveyor but subsequently he came to know that the form was nothing but an agreement form. On scrutiny of the form, the husband of the complainant found that , the
garage authority had submitted estimate in 4 (four) items separately but the surveyor by adopting trick some how managed to get signed upon the agreement form wherein only charges by the garage for the first item out of total four items was allotted . Hence this complaint filed by the complainant with prayer as prayed in the prayer portion of the complaint.
The Op/Insurance company contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The positive case of the Op is that the D.O. of the Insurance company had never told the husband of the complainant that no documents about the car was submitted before the surveyor. The statements that the husband of the complainant charged the surveyor over that alleged issue or that the surveyor replied that he inspected all the matters about the car and he will get done everything all right in favour of the complainant or that inspite of that the concerned company have practiced dishonest motive to deprive the claim or that the Insurance company was bound to make payment to the policy holder beyond the liability under the policy. It is, however, submitted that as per the survey report as filed with by separate firisti and as per the assessment agreement sheet as filed by firisti the claim was duly processed and
after processing the claim the settlement intimation voucher for an approved amount of Rs.23,657/- was issued based upon the surveyor report and duly executed assessment agreement sheet and all other documents as submitted by the insured and the said voucher was sent to the insured for her execution in order to enable the oP Insurance company by transferring the amount to her account in the bank for which the Insurance company vide their letter dated 28.2.2014 also requested to provide the bank details of the complainant and thus there is no negligence or deficiency on the part of the Op/Insurance company and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant filed photo copy of policy, photo copy of letter dated 25.10.2013, photo copy of bill dated 25.10.13, Assessment agreement sheet, Supplementary estimate, photo copy of advocate’s letter dated 21.2.2014. Complainant also filed original Garage bill on 20.11.2013 and 23.11.2013. The complainant also filed Evidence in chief and W.N.A. Opposite party on the other hand filed copy of policy, written version, evidence in chief , Written Notes of argument.
POINTS FOR DECISION :
- Whether the complainant is a consumer ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
- Whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Point no.1
It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased Motor claim Insurance from the Opposite party , so the complainant is a consumer under the Op/Insurance company as per Section 2(d)(i) of the C.P.Act, 1986. The point no.1 is thus answered in favour of the complainant.
Point no.2 and 3
Both the points are taken up together for easiness of discussion.
The complainant has submitted the repairing cost by voucher issued the garage for a sum of Rs.25,000/- ( Rs.22,800/- + Rs.2,200/-) in original. The surveyor of the oP/company prepared final report and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.22,500/-. Accordingly, the Insurance company approved amount Rs.23,657/- and the same was based on the Surveyor report, and this was made as per document submitted in the Insured and the Op requested the complainant
to provide the bank details. But the complainant did not take this amount. On the other hand, the Op Insurance company did not file any paper to show that in fact they issue the A/c payee cheque in the name of the complainant as per their calculation. There is no paper before us filed by the Op to show and substantiate that they took step in furtherance of their decision issuing a A/c payee cheque in favour of the complainant . In absence of such activeness on the part of the Op it is deficiency in service to some extent. The fact reflected in the record also shows that reimbursement of expenditure of repairing cost has not been paid by the OP which the complainant is legally entitled to get.
So, after deliberation over the matter before us we are of opinion that the complainant’s case succeeds. Hence it is –
Ordered
That the C.C.Case no. 113 of 2014 be and the same is allowed on contest. The Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant towards repairing cost of the vehicle in question as per original bill dated 20.11.2013 and 23.11.2013 submitted by the complainant. The Op is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for her unnecessary
harassment, mental agony and pain. The Op is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards litigation cost.
The Op is directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order i.d. Rs.200/- per day shall be imposed upon the Op and that amount will be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund till full compliance of the order.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
