DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION: WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 57 of  2023

 

 

Smt. Rinku Shil,

W/O- Sri Sampad Chowdhury,

Bholananda Palli, P.O.- Kathal Bagan, 

P.S. New Capital Complex,  

Agartala, District- West Tripura, 

Pin- 799006. .................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

 

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For  the  O.P. : Sri Gitangshu Shekhar Das,

 

 

 

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

1. This case U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been filed by Smt. Rinku Shil, of Bholananda Palli, Agartala, West Tripura(here-in-after called as “the complainant”) against the New India Assurance Company Ltd., Agartala Divisional Office, Agartala, West Tripura(here-in-after called as “the O.P.”) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. 

 

1.1 The fact of the case in short is that the Complainant is the owner of the Car bearing registration No. TR 01 AZ 0441( Tata TIAGO XT). The said vehicle was insured with the O.P. Insurance company covering period from 15.09.2022 to 14.09.2023. Premium of Rs.13,326/- was paid for the aforesaid policy along with additional coverage of 'Nil Depreciation' for which the complainant had paid additional premium of Rs.5000/-. 

 

1.2 On 26.04.2023 the said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident at Ramnagar. As a result the vehicle got damaged.  

1.3 Written information was lodged by the husband of the complainant to Ramnagar TOP, under West Agartala Police Station  vide  Ramanager TOP  GDE No. 21. dated 26.04.2023.  

1.4 The matter was also intimated to the O.P. Insurance Company on 27.04.2023 along with separate prayer of insurance claim for repairing the vehicle. 

1.5 Thereafter the damaged vehicle was shifted to Progressive Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. which is the Authorized Service Centre of Tata Motors on 27.04.2023. The O.P. through Email informed the complainant that they appointed surveyor namely Mr. Pranay Goswami to survey the vehicle. 

 

1.6 After completion of repairing works on 19.05.2023 the complainant paid the bill amounting to Rs.49,344/-.

1.7 On 22.06.2023 the O.P. informed the complainant that the insurance claim of the complainant was settled for an amount of Rs.43,491/-  which is lesser amount from the actual bill amount paid by the complainant without considering the Insurance Policy subscribed by the complainant as 'Nil Depreciation'  along additional coverage premium for additional loss of vehicle.

1.8 Hence, this case claiming  balance amount of Rs.5853/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-. 

 

2. The O.P. Insurance company in their written objection pleaded that the O.P. settled the claim with reasonable amount as assessed by the surveyor and the complainant received the amount without any objection. They also pleaded that the copy of the bill i.e.  the Tax Invoice (Annexure -7) does not bear any signature of any authorized signatory and the invoice does not indicate that the Progressive Automobiles is the authorized service centre of Tata Motors. Hence, the document can not be considered.

 

2.1 The O.P. further pleaded that the claim of Rs.5853/- by the complainant is not tenable as the claim is  settled by the insurance company as per assessment made by the surveyor and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

 

3. Both the parties submitted documents and evidence on affidavit.

 

4. Hearing argument the following point is taken up for discussion and decision:-

 

DECISION AND REASONS:-

5. Although the O.P. Insurance company pleaded that the tax invoice issued by the Progressive Automobiles does not bear any signature or Progressive Automobiles is not the authorized repairing centre etc. but the surveyor of the O.P. Insurance company visited that repairing centre and submitted estimate on physical inspection of the vehicle. The only dispute is the Progressive automobile submitted final estimate for Rs.49,344/- where as the O.P. Insurance company paid Rs.43,491/- as per the estimate submitted by the surveyor. From the report of the surveyor it is not clear why the rest amount of Rs. 5853/- was denied by the Insurance company as per the report of the surveyor and what was the basis of the surveyor to estimate the less amount of Rs.5853/- than that of the estimate of Rs.49,344/- submitted by the progressive Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Hence, we do not find any justification not to allow this amount to the complainant.

 

6. In the result, it is decided that the O.P. Insurance Company shall pay the balance amount of Rs.5853/- to the complainant with interest @ 7.5% P.A. from the date of filing the case i.e. 06.07.2023 till the date of actual payment unless this amount is paid within 30 days from today.

7. The case stands disposed off however, without any cost.

 

8. Supply copy of this order to both the parties free of cost.  

Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.