Tripura

West Tripura

CC/1/2015

Shri Dipak Chandra Kar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. A. Nandi

05 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC-   01   of   2015

Sri Dipak Chandra Kar,
S/O- Late Makhan Lal Kar,
Shibnagar, College Road,
P.S.- East Agartala,
District- West Tripura.            ...........Complainant.

    
             ___VERSUS___

             
1. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Divisional Office Agartala,
Located at 42/2 Central Road,
Represented by the Divisional Manager,
P.S. East Agartala, District- West Triupura.

2. The Assistant Manager, 
Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office Agartala,
Located at 42/2 Central Road, 
P.S. East Agartala, West Tripura.

3. Hind Motors,
Tata Motors Authorized Service Station,
By-pass N.H. 44, Kalitala, Old Agartala,
Khayerpur, P.S. Ranirbazar,
District- West Tripura,
(Represented by the Authorized 
signatory of Hind Motors).        .........Opposite parties.
    

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant        : Sri Ashis Nandi,
                      Advocate.

For the OP. No. 1 & 2        :  Sri Prahlad Kr. Debnath,
                       Advocate.  

For the O.P. No. 3            : Sri Pradip Chakraborty,
                      Sri Sujit Chakraborty,
                      Mrs. Sukriti Debnath,
                      Advocates.                                 

              
        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  05.04.2016

J U D G M E N T

        This case was arises on the petition filed by Dipak Chandra Kar U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The fact of the case in short is that the Tata truck bearing registration no. TR 01 N 1744 met with accident on 04.06.2011. The vehicle was insured with the Opposite party, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. for a sum assured Rs.17 lacs. The vehicle was shifted to the workshop of O.P. No.3, Hind Motors and the O.P. No.3 furnished estimate of Rs.9,66,177/- for repairing the damaged vehicle. While O.P. No.3 started repairing the vehicle, petitioner could not pay the full amount so, it was not repaired fully. Insurance company appointed surveyor for assessment of damage. But the survey report not given. Petitioner then claimed the amount of Rs.7 lacs for repairing on cash loss basis. But the claim was not entertained by the Opposite party. Petitioner then filed this complaint claiming compensation of Rs.12,10,000/-. 
2.        Opposite party No.1 and 2, Oriental Insurance company Ltd. filed W/S denying the claim. It is stated that the complainant did not spend any amount for repairing the vehicle. He also did not co-operate in respect of survey for assessment of damage. No advance payment was made for repairing. Without assessing the actual expenditure for repairing the O.P. Insurance company can not pay the amount. Therefore, the claim is liable to be rejected. 

3.        Written objection also filed by on behalf of the Hind Motors stating that the complainant paid Rs.2 lacs to them as advance for repairing. But the complete work could not be done as initial payment for Rs.5,30,000/- not paid. So, repairing could not be completed. 

4.        On the basis of contention as raised by by the parties following points cropped up for determination.
        (I) Whether the vehicle was damaged and cost of repairing was more than Rs.7 lacs?
        (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for deficiency of service by the O.P.?

5.        The claimant petitioner side produced police report, investigation report, FIR, copy of estimate, letter, copy of Insurance Policy, Letter addressed to the Oriental Insurance co. Ltd., copy of M.V.I. report, copy of bill dated 07.10.14. Those are exhibited and marked Exhibit- 1 Series. Petitioner also examined one witness i.e., the petitioner himself.

6.        Opposite party on the other hand produced Insurance Policy, letters, FIR, Motor claim form, surveyor report,  estimate of Hind Motors, letter dated 05.07.12 and thereafter. O.P. also examined one witness i.e., the official of Insurance company. 
        O.P. No.3 produced no evidence.

7.        On the basis of all these evidence we shall now determine the above points.

        FINDINGS:

8.        We have gone through the documents  filed by both the parties, as well as the evidence given. O.P. produced surveyor report of the surveyor and assessor, Sankar Roy. From the surveyor report, Sanakar Roy it is found that total damages assessed is Rs.6,39,463/- . Estimate given for this amount. Hind Motors also has given estimate and as per estimate of the Hind Motors total damage is Rs.9,66,177/-. Both the estimate were produced by the O.P. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. From the written statement of the Opposite party, Hind Motors it is found that petitioner paid Rs.2 lacs in advance. But the car could not repaired fully as Rs.5,30,000/- was not paid. Estimate of Hind Motors also produced by petitioner. Petitioner by letter dated 29.06.11 informed the Divisional Manager of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. about the estimate of Hind Motors.

9.        It is fact that the vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The Policy certificate is also produced. Total coverage was Rs.17,00,000/- as per policy certificate. Assistant Manager of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. by letter dated 31.12.12 repudiated the claim of the petitioner stating that the petitioner was not interested in the matter of claim as required papers were not submitted. Petitioner was asked to inform the Insurance company about the present status of the vehicle but that matter was also not informed. From the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector it is found that front glass, bumper, head light and lightening system, radiator, battery, exhaust pipe, front wheel, right hand side driver cabin, chasis, steering, meter panel all were damaged by the accident. So, assessment done by the assessor of Hind Motors is supported by the M.V. Inspector report. It is true that petitioner could not repair the vehicle for want of money. But from the written objection of O.P. No.3 Hind Motors, it is found that Rs.2 lacs were paid by the petitioner for repairing and some pairing was done. The vehicle was repaired thereafter by industrial engineer. We have gone through the bill given to the Dipak Chandra Kar, petitioner. Total cost of repairing was Rs.2,48,500/- . So, it is clear that petitioner spent Rs.2,48,500/- for repairing of the vehicle. But as per report of the assessor and the estimate given by Hind Motors cost of repairing was Rs.9 lacs. Petitioner could not pay the amount and the vehicle was not repaired. As per terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy certificate petitioner is entitled to get cost of repairing on cash loss basis. Repairing basis or on total loss. Here in this case petitioner claimed the amount of repairing basis not on cash loss basis or on total loss. In case of repairing basis cost of damage of the vehicle the petitioner is to place the documents, vouchers, to support that the amount was spent by him. But the petitioner could not produce any documents to support that this amount of Rs.9 lacs or Rs.7 lacs as assessed by the assessor was spent by him. 

10.        From the careful scrutiny of evidence on record it is found that the petitioner actually spent Rs.4,48,500/-. He paid Rs.2 lacs to the Hind Motors as advance and some repairing was done. He also paid Rs.2,58,500/- to  Industrial Engineers. The Proprietor of the repairing shop produced vouchers dated 07.10.14. So, for repairing he spent Rs.4,48,500/-. As per documents available petitioner is entitled to get this amount. Insurance company repudiated the claim without considering the real damage done. This is deficiency of service. So for the deficiency of service petitioner is entitled to get Rs.25,000/-. Thus in total petitioner is entitled to get Rs.4,48,500/- + Rs.25,000/-. Total Rs.4,73,500/-. Thus points No.1 and 2 are decided accordingly.

11.        We are of the considered opinion that the petitioner spent Rs.4,48,500/- and the vouchers in support of that was produced. The O.P. No.3 admitted receipt of Rs.2 lacs and same was placed before the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. denied the claim knowing fully that the vehicle was badly damaged. Assessor assessed the damage for more than Rs.7 lacs. So, the Insurance company was on fault by denying the claim. Therefore, we hold that there was deficiency of service on behalf of the Insurance company. We therefore, direct the Insurance company to pay the amount of Rs.4,48,500/- + Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner within 2 months without fail. In case of failure to pay in time the amount will carry interest @ 9% P.A. Supply copy of the judgment.
        

                          Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, WEST TRIPURA.