BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

CACHAR :: SILCHAR

Con. Case No. 25 of 2018

                Musstt. Pakiza Afsar,

            W/o Md. Mehdi Hassan of Dewan Mansion,

            United Bank Building, Sonai Road, Silchar ………………………………………….          Complainant.          

                                                            -V/S-

Oriental Inssurance Co. Ltd.,

(Represented by its Divisional Manager)

Divisional Office, Town Club Building,

PWD Road, Silchar …………………………………………………………………………Opp. party

Present: -                                 Sri Bishnu Debnath,                                           President,

District Consumer Forum,

                                                Cachar, Silchar.                                            

                                                            Sri Kamal Kumar Sarda,                                        Member,

                                                            District Consumer Forum,

                                                            Cachar, Silchar.                                            

            Appeared: -                 Mr. Asamanja Biswas, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Sasanka Deb, Advocate for the O.P.

                            Date of Evidence                                         08-11-2018, 26-11-2018

                         Date of written argument                             21-12-2018 (respectively)

                         Date of oral argument                                   02-01-2019

                         Date of judgment                                           17-01-2019

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

                                 Sri Bishnu Debnath,

1. The Complainant Musstt. Pakiza Afsar is registered owner of Renault Duster vehicle bearing Registration No. As-01-BM-8170 (vehicle). The said vehicle has been insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (O.P.) for the period from 09/09/2016 to 08/09/2017. But unfortunately the vehicle met accident on 10/06/2016. However, the Complainant submitted claim form to the O.P and as per instruction of the O.P. the vehicle has been towed to workshop of TI Auto Mobiles, Guwahati from accident spot at Bandukmara, Hailakandi. In the course of process the surveyor made assessment of damage and declared the vehicle sustained total damage. Further, the Complainant was informed by the O.P. that the O.P. is to pay cash amount of Rs.4,49,000 out of insured Declared value (IDV) of Rs.6,50,000/- and balanced Rs.2,00,000/- to be obtained from sale proceeds of damage vehicle. Accordingly, the Complainant was asked to issue a letter of acceptance of settlement. But misleaded to make the Complainant to believe that the damaged vehicle can be sold at Rs.2,00,000/- or more because the Complainant failed to sell the damaged vehicle for Rs.2,00,000/- or more, rather prospective buyer was willing to pay Rs.35,000/- to Rs.50,000/- . In that matter made several correspondence with O.P. but in vain. Hence, the Complaint lodged under the provision of Consumer Act.1986.
2. The O.P. in its W/S stated inter alia below:- the amount of final settlement has been fixed mutually as Rs.4,49,000/- only along with the price of the damaged vehicle to be sold as salvaged item in view Annexure A, dated 14/09/2017. The O.P. also stated that on the basis of said letter dated 14/09/2017, the D.M of O.P. on 23/10/2017 informed the matter to the D.T.O Kamrup and request to cancel the R.C vide Annexure B, dated 23/10/2017. As such the opinion of the O.P. is that the Complainant is not entitled any relief from this District Forum.
3. The Complainant submitted her deposition with many documents to established her claim. The Complainant also submitted deposition of her husband Md. Mehdi Hassan as P.W-2. The O.P. examined its witness Upamanya Purkayastha and exhibited some documents. After closing evidence both sides counsels submitted their written arguments.
4. The moot point is whether the Complainant was misleaded to enter in to mutual agreement to settle the amount of Rs.4,49,000/- along with the price of damaged vehicle sold as salvaged item. Whether the O.P. or its surveyor deceitfully assess scrap value of the damaged vehicle as Rs.2,00,00/-
5. From the evidence on record it is crystal clear that IDV of the vehicle was Rs.6,50,000/- and O.P obtained a letter of acceptance from the Complainant to the effect that for total damaged insured vehicle the Complainant to get Rs.4,49,000/- in cash and she was allowed to retain the damaged vehicle subject to cancellation of the RC whose scrap value is RS.2,00,000/-.
6. The complainant deposed that she issued the letter of acceptance of settlement as she was made believed that the damage vehicle may be sold for Rs.2.00,000/- or more but she did not find any such customer to purchase the damage vehicle with above price and hence she felt misleaded by the O.P. 
7. But in her letter dated 14-09-2017 vide Ext. B does not reflect such fact. If price of the damage vehicle is included in the mutual settlement as Rs.2,00,000/- on addition of Rs.4,49,000/- specifically the said amount would be disclosed by the complainant in that letter. Nothing reflected about the amount Rs.2,00,000/-, in that letter. Moreover, from careful perusal of other relevant exhibited documents I do not find any such agreement entered between the parties that if the complainant failed to sell the damaged vehicle for Rs.2,00,000/- or more, the shortfall of that amount will be borne by the O.P. Of course, in view of Ext-1, letter of the O.P it is clear that the surveyor of the O.P assessed the value of the damaged vehicle as Rs.2,00,000/-. But this does not mean to conclude that the complainant did not understand the consequence and issued the letter of acceptance of settlement on wrong conception. Hence, issuing the Ext-D & E letter by the O.P to the complainant does not commit any disservice.
8. Accordingly, in this case I am not finding any scope to grant any type of relief to the complainant. Thus, the case is dismissed without cost.