Assam

Tinsukia

CC/1/2016

SANTOSH DEBNATH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD - Opp.Party(s)

RANJIT DUTTA

04 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM : :   TINSUKIA : :  ASSAM

District:         Tinsukia

 

Present:           Smti M. Nandi,

                        President,

            District Consumer Disputes

                        Redressal Forum,  Tinsukia

 

            Smti J. Gogoi,

                        Member,

            District Consumer Disputes

                        Redressal Forum,  Tinsukia

 

            Sri K.K. Das,

                        Member,

            District Consumer Disputes

                        Redressal Forum,  Tinsukia

 

                   Consumer Case No. 1 of 2016

Sri Santosh Debnath,

S/o Late Manindra Debnath,

R/o Tirap Gate, P.S. Lekhapani,

District: Tinsukia (Assam)…………..……...…..….………………..…..Complainant

• Versus –

1.       The Branch Manager,

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Digboi Branch, Jyotsna Complex, 2^nd floor,

P.O. & P.S. Digboi,

Dist: Tinsukia (Assam)

2.       The Divisional Manager,

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Tinsukia Division, P.O. Tinsukia,

P.S. & Dist: Tinsukia (Assam)………………………….…Opposite Parties

         

Appearance:

                   Sri R. Dutta,

                   Advocate……………………………….For the Complainant

                   Sri A.C. Borah,

                   Advocate……………………………….For the O.Ps.

 

                   Date of Argument     :         23.03.2017 & 04.05.2017    

                   Date of Judgment     :         04.05.2017

J    U    D    G    M    E    N    T

 

This is a case u/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act filed by the complainant Santosh Debnath.

2.       It is stated in the petition that the complainant is the registered owner of a Chevrolet Beat 1.2 LT Option Pack, bearing No.AS-06-K-7981 and the said car is insured with the O.P. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vide Policy No.322501/31/2014/798, which was valid from 25.11.13 to 24.11.14. On 4.10.14 at about 3.30 A.M., the complainant’s car met with an accident near Tingrai Assomiya Pathar on NH 38 under Digboi P.S., District – Tinsukia and hit with a Chota Hati, bearing registration No.AS-23-AC-7832, whereby the car of the complainant was badly damaged. The said car was then inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, office of D.T.O., Tinsukia by police requisition and furnished a full detailed report. Immediately after the accident, the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Digboi Branch was intimated about the accident. Later, on 29.10.14 a formal letter was submitted narrating the facts of the accident to the Branch Manager of the insurance company. Then, the complainant was asked to furnish the entire documents and accordingly, the said documents were provided by the complainant on 10.2.15. On 12.11.14, when the vehicle was brought to Chevrolet dealer at M/s Pashupati Traders for repairing, the company has furnished an estimate for the repairs of the vehicle. Thereafter O.P. No.1 took several time to settle the insurance claim of the complainant  and subsequently stated that they cannot settle the claim of the complainant and finding no other alternative, a legal notice was issued dated 30.11.15 to settle the total damage claim of the Chevrolet car, which was duly received by the O.P. No.1. Even after expiry of the stipulated time given in the said legal notice, the O.P. No.1 did not make any settlement to the claim of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant was compelled to file this case before the District Consumer Forum claiming to replace parts so damaged of the car  bearing No.AS-06-K-7981, for every such fare and fright charges for dragging the complainant for such a long time and cost of the suit.

3.       Against the petition, the O.P. submitted their written statement, wherein it is stated that the complainant has no right to file this case and is not entitled to get any relief, as the matter of settlement is not repudiated by the O.P. and still pending for settlement. As such, the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that they always tried to settle the matter as early as possible, but their hands are fastened with the provisions of the policy and the purview of the law. Hence, it takes time to settle the matter. It is further stated that the complainant submitted claim form on 17.11.14 and after that O.P. immediately entrusted one Surveyor to survey and assess the cost of damage and accordingly, the Surveyor submitted its report on 10.2.15, wherein the surveyor assessed the cost of damage amounting to Rs.3,24,191.66. The IDV of the vehicle is Rs.4,69,736/- as per policy and the cost of damage does not exceed 75% of IDV and as such, claim cannot be settled on total loss basis and it falls only on repairing basis, which was duly communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 6.10.15 i.e. prior to issue of legal notice. As such, the O.P. has neither any deficiency in service nor negligent or delay to settle the matter.  It is also stated that the insurance company neither settled the claim nor repudiated it. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation, as prayed for.

4.       During trial, the complainant has submitted his affidavital evidence, wherein he has stated the same thing, whatever he has stated in his petition. The complainant also exhibited some documents in support of his case. Ext.1 is the  acknowledgment copy of application addressed to the insurer, Ext.2 is the legal notice dated 30.11.15 issued to the O.P. No.2, Ext.3 is the postal registration slip dated 2.12.15 and Ext.4 is the A.D. card with Branch seal of O.P. No.2 dated 3.12.15.

5.       On the other hand, O.P. also adduced one witness on behalf of the insurance company i.e. Sri R. Brahma, Manager of  Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and the witness admitted that the  complainant is the registered owner of vehicle bearing No.AS-06-K-7981 Chevrolet Beat and same met with an accident near Tingrai Assomiya Pathar village over N.H. 38 under Digboi P.S. and the vehicle was also damaged due to the alleged accident. As the vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Digboi Branch, after the incident, the complainant intimated the matter at Digboi Branch and submitted the duly filled up claim form on 17.11.14. After that they engaged one surveyor to survey the vehicle and to assess the cost of damage and accordingly, the surveyor submitted its report on 10.2.15 wherein the surveyor assessed the cost of damage amounting to Rs.3,24,191.66. It is also stated that as per norms, the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.4,69,736/- as per policy, the cost of damage is 69% only. Hence, the cost of damage does not exceed 75% of IDV and as such, the claim cannot be settled on total loss basis and it falls only on repairing basis. Though they asked the complainant to settle the matter on repairing basis considering the IDV, then he made a prayer vide letter dated 24.3.15 to consider his matter as total loss basis. Therefore, the matter of settlement had to take for reconsideration and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company. DW1 also exhibited some documents. Ext.A is the report of the  surveyor, Ext.B is the policy of the vehicle, Ext.C is the letter dated 24.3.15 of the complainant, Ext.D is the letter dated 6.10.15, Ext.E is the copy of legal notice dated 30.11.15 and Ext.F is the letter dated 11.8.15 of C.R.M.

6.       I have heard argument advanced by ld. counsel of both sides.

7.       It is seen that the complainant did not specifically spell the amount i.e. cost of damage of his vehicle in his petition. It appears from the evidence and the documents available in the record that the O.P. asked the complainant to provide his surveyor report of the vehicle, but no such document of the surveyor was furnished from the side of the complainant. It is an admitted fact that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing No.AS-06-K-7981 Chevrolet Beat and said vehicle met with an accused with Chota Hati bearing No.AS-23-AC-7832 on 4.10.14 near Tingrai Assomiya Pathar village under Digboi P.S. and the vehicle was damaged due to the alleged accident. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Digboi Branch and after the accident on 29.10.14, the complainant intimated the matter at  Digboi branch, but submitted the duly filled up claim form on 17.11.14. After filing of the claim form of the complainant, the O.P. entrusted its surveyor to survey the vehicle and to assess the cost of damage and accordingly, surveyor submitted its report on 10.2.15 wherein the surveyor assessed the cost of damage amounting to Rs.3,24,191.66. As per norms, considering the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.4,69,736/- as per policy, the cost of damage is only 69% only. Hence, the cost of damage does not exceed 75% and as such, claim cannot be settled on total loss basis, it falls only on repairing basis. But according to the complainant, the matter should be settled on total loss basis, but the complainant failed to produce any such document from which it could be assessed that the cost of damage of the vehicle is more than estimated cost as per report of the surveyor and the O.P. is ready to pay the said amount.

8.       During argument, ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the total coverage of the liability is mentioned in the insurance policy at limit of liability is Rs.7,50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- in all, so they can easily pay the damages to the complainant without prejudice.

9.       On the other hand, ld. counsel for the O.P. argued that after considering the report of the surveyor and other relevant documents as well as sum assured, the complainant is entitled to the damage of the car on repairing basis only i.e. Rs.3,24,191.66 and not in total loss basis.

10.     After hearing both sides and the documents available in the record, it is considered by the Forum that the complainant is entitled to the damage of the car on repairing basis only and the O.P. is ready to pay the same, as such it is apparent that there is no deficiency on the part of the O.P.

11.     However, as the O.P. is ready to pay the cost of damage of the vehicle amounting to Rs.3,24,191.66, the O.P. is directed to pay the said amount to the complainant within two months from the date of passing of this order.

 

 

O     R     D     E     R

12.     In the result, the complaint petition is partly allowed. The O.P./insurance company is directed to pay a total amount of Rs.3,24,191.66 to the complainant within two months from the date of passing of this order.

Given under my hand & seal of this Forum on this the 4^th day of May,  2017.

Dictated & corrected by me.

 

                                                                           (M. Nandi)

            President                                                 President

District Consumer Disputes                          District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum,  Tinsukia                          Redressal Forum,  Tinsukia                   

We  agree:   

 

 

              Member                                               Member   

District Consumer Disputes                      District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum,  Tinsukia                      Redressal Forum,  Tinsukia