BEFORE THE PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM
GOMATI DISTRICT ::: UDAIPUR
CASE NO. C.C. 08 OF 2014
Smti. Shipra Bhowmik - Complainant
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opposite Party
PRESENT
Shri Asish Pal,
PRESIDENT
Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum,
Gomati District, Udaipur
And
Shri Haridas Roy Barman
&
Smti. Runu Das (Roy Choudhuri)
MEMBERS
COUNSEL
For the Complainant - Shri Bishnupada Debroy,
Husband of the petitioner.
For the Opposite Party - Mr. Biplab Kanti Datta,
Learned Avocate.
Date of Delivery of Judgment - 13.03.2015
J U D G M E N T
This case arises on the petition filed by one Smti. Shipra Bhowmik.
2. The petitioner’s case, in short, is that her vehicle bearing No.TR-03-A-0736 covered by the insurance policy certificate was damaged partly and for repairing of the same, she had to spend Rs.97,437/-. Case memos in respect of expenditure incurred was produced by the petitioner before the Insurance Co. for payment as it was covered by the policy but the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Paid only Rs.49,000/- and refused to pay the total amount of Rs.97,437/-. Petitioner, therefore, filed this prayer before this Court for compensation.
3. Respondent Insurance Co. appeared and filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that the survey report was taken and after careful examination of the damage of the vehicle and on proper assessment, Rs.49,000/- was paid to the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to get any more.
4. Petitioner then filed statement on affidavit of one witness and also produced insurance policy certificate, driving license, voucher of Gomoti Motors where the vehicle was repaired.
5. Respondent Insurance Co. also examined one witness namely Raj Kumar Krishnendu Sinha, Branch Manager of the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Udaipur Branch.
6. We have gone through the evidence given by both the parties. Now, we shall consider the only point:
(1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the compensation, as claimed and any other relief?
7. After going through the evidence on record we shall, now, decide the above point.
FINDINGS & DECISIONS AND REASONS FOR DECISION ON
POINT NOS. 1
8. From the evidence of both sides it is clear that Rs.49,000/- was given by the Insurance Co. as an expenditure incurred due to repairing of the partly damaged of the vehicle. There is no denying the fact that the vehicle was insured and the Insurance Co. is not liable to pay the actual amount spent for repairing. The Insurance Co. in their written statement or in the evidence did not deny the insurance coverage of the vehicle and liability to pay the amount incurred in respect of repairing of the partly damage of the vehicle.
From the voucher produced it is found that actual expenditure for repairing of the vehicle was Rs.97,437/-. Those were incurred for fitting charges of many parts, dicky repairing and other upper joint fitting, middle door repairing, rear portion repairing, cross member, taibar rod, center bush complete, steering box, rear glass, bumber etc.
The Insurance Co. did not deny these vouchers as produced by the Gomoti Motors. It is true that the petitioner’s side did not produce any person of the Gomati Motors of Ramesh Chowmuhani, Udaipur to prove the contents of the vouchers. But as it is not denied specifically by the Insurance Co., prime facie, it appears that the expenditure as shown in the vouchers is correct one.
On the other hand, the O.P. Insurance Co. failed to produce the Survey Report, assessment report on which basis they came to the conclusion that actually Rs.49,000/- was the just expenditure for the repairing of the damage vehicle. Only the statement of the Branch Manager is not sufficient to come to a just conclusion that Rs.49,000/- was only required for the repairing of the vehicle. The Surveyor Report of Prasenjit Chakraborty not produced and not proved by evidence to support the contention of the respondent Insurance Co. Therefore, we may come to the safe conclusion that actually Rs.97,437/- was spent by the petitioner for repairing of the vehicle and the petitioner is entitled to get the same as per the terms of the policy.
9. Therefore, it is decided that the respondent Insurance Co. is under liability to pay the same to the petitioner. For non-payment of the same for this period, petitioner had to file this case and, therefore, petitioner is also entitled to get additional Rs.5,000/- for deficiency of service by the respondent Insurance Co. Accordingly, it is decided by this Consumer Court that petitioner is entitled to get the repairing expenditure of Rs.97,437/- - Rs.49.000/-, which is actually paid by the respondent Insurance Co. + Rs.5,000/- for deficiency of service by the respondent Insurance Co. In total, petitioner is entitled to get remaining amount Rs.97,437/- - Rs.49,000/- = Rs.48,437/- + Rs.5,000/- = Rs.53,437/-. So, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is to pay the amount Rs.53,437/- to the petitioner, Smti. Shipra Bhowmik within a period of 2 months.in case of failure to pay the amount within 2 months, it will carry interest @ 9% per annum till payment is made.
9. The case stands disposed of.
10. Supply copy of this judgment to the parties at free of cost.
A N N O U N C E D
(Haridas Roy Barman) (Smti. Runu Das (Roy Choudhuri) (Asish Pal)
Member Member President
Consumer Dispute Redressal Consumer Dispute Redressal Consumer Dispute Redressal
Forum, Gomati District Forum, Gomati District Forum, Gomati District
Udaipur Udaipur Udaipur
