Date of filing:03.12.2013                                                              Date of disposal:19.06.2014

Complainant: Raja Ram Sahu, resident of 342, Nirmala Bhavan, Khaluibill Math, P.O. &

                           Dist-Burdwan, Pin-713101.

-VERSUS-

Opposite Party: 1. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., registered office at Reliance

                                  Centre, 19, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001.

                              2. The Policy Issuance Officer, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., office at

                                  570, Rectifier House, Naigaum Cross Road Wadala(W), Mumbai-400 031.

                 3. The Policy Servicing Officer, reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., office at 

                     Galaxy 2^nd floor, Shahid Khudiram Sarani, City Centre, Durgapur,

                      Dist.-Burdwan.

Present :  Hon’ble President: Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay

     Hon’ble Member :  Smt. Silpi Majumder

                  Hon’ble Member :  Sri Durga Sankar Das

Appeared for the Complainant: Complainant himself.

Appeared for the Opposite Parties:  Ld. Advocate Abhishek Dubey.

JUDGEMENT

                This is an application U/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

            The complainant’s short case is that he insured one Tata Prima 4928A/Triler vehicle being registration No.NL-02K 4100 with Reliance Insurance Company and the insured value is rs.3,00,000/-. 

            The accident occurred on 25.1.2013 and during the accident time, the vehicle had valid fitness certificate, tax paid paper and valid receipt, valid driving license and valid permit.

            After the accident the complainant immediately informed the O.P. No.3 and as per instruction of the O.P., inspection work was taken place and a statutory valuation was made to assess the loss and damages caused due to the accident.  To make the vehicle in good running condition the complainant took quotation from various firm and purchased parts, accessories, painting materials.  The labour charge and other ancillary expenses were also paid by him.  The complainant spent the amount to the tune of Rs.5,41,420/- from his own as per instruction of the O.P. No.3 who assured to pay all the costs.

            The O.P. Insurance Company make an inspection and assessed the loss and claimable amount to the tune of Rs.2,85,000/-.  The complainant protested to the said valuation of the losses made by the surveyor and requested the company to make a valuation of loss by an independent surveyor to assess the validity and authenticity of the expenses incurred by the complainant.  But unfortunately, the Insurance Company reimbursed total amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant which was accepted by the complainant with verbal protest.   The complainant wanted to register his protest in writing but O.P. No.3 requested him not to do so and promised to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,91,420/- within 20^th November, 2013 but on the same day the O.P. No.3 flatly refused to repay the difference amount of surveyor value loss and the actual payment made by the complainant.

            The complainant is entitled to get remaining amount of Rs.2,91,420/-

( Rs.5,41,420/- minus Rs.2,50,000/-) from Reliance Insurance Company in terms of the insurance policy or not and by not paying the residue amount the insurance company has shown negligence and deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice to the complainant.  Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case before this Ld. Forum for relief.

The O.P. No.1 & 2 have contested the case by filing written version, denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against them.  The O.P.s further stated that there was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of this O.P.s and therefore, the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost to these O.P.s and these O.P.s is not liable to pay any compensation under the policy mentioned by the complainant.

Point for consideration in this case is;

1. Whether the O.P.s are acted any deficiency service by not allowing Rs.5,41,420/-?

DECISION WITH REASON

It is the case of the complainant that the insured vehicle met with an accident which was duly intimated to the O.P. No.3.  It has further stated that complainant took quotation from the various firm and purchased parts, accessories, painting materials etc. and also paid labour charges and other expenses to make the vehicle in good running condition and thereby he spent Rs.5,41,420/- as per instruction of O.P. No.3 ,who assured to pay all the cost.  Thereafter, O.P. insurance company make inspection and assessed the loss amount to the tune of Rs.2,85,000/- but complainant protested the said valuation which was made by the surveyor and also requested the company to make valuation of loss by an independent surveyor but the company did not pay any heed to it and reimbursed Rs.2,50,000/.  It may be mentioned here that the complainant accepted the amount because there was an assurance from the O.P. to make the balance amount of Rs.2,91,420/- within 20^th November 2013.  But the same has flatly refused, hence the complaint.

            Now we should turned our eyes on the documents i.e. surveyor report from where we find that O.P. already filed the report and net claim amount after deduction of salvage money of Rs.92,845/- comes Rs.2,50,000/- which was paid by the O.P. to the complainant.  But unfortunately, the survey report is not authenticated document because the survey report was not signed by the surveyor.  So we fell to keep reliance upon the said survey report filed in this case.  Thus, we hold the survey report is prepared as a table work of the O.P.   On the other hand the documents filed by the complainant are very much reliable because it bears seal, signature, revenue stamp etc.  Thus we hold that survey report has no legs to stand since surveyor did not file the same along with affidavit and its bearing his signature.  Thus on a moment scrutiny the survey report is nothing but a paper work in order to deprive the complainant for his lawful claim, which is undoubtedly deficiency in service, particularly when accident is admitted and damage of the vehicle is also admitted but at the time of assessing the quantum of damage O.P. did not act fairly.  So, complainant is entitled to get remaining amount of expenditure i.e. Rs.2,91,420/- from the O.P. together with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1000/-. 

            In this back drop the case is succeeds.  Hence, it is

ORDERED

that the application U/s 12 of the C.P. Act is allowed on contest against the O.P.s.  The O.P.s are directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,91,420/- , compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1000/-, in default 10% interest will carry on the balance repair charges i.e. Rs.2,91,420/- from the date of this order to its realization.  The complainant is at liberty to execute the order after the stipulated period is over.  Let the plain copy of this order be handed over to all the parties free of cost.

                    (Udayan Mukhopadhyay)        

             Dictated and corrected by me.                                                           President       

                                                                                                                    D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan

                  (Udayan Mukhopadhyay)

                           President

                   D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan

              (Silpi Majumder)                                                              (Durga Sankar Das)

                    Member                                                                            Member    

            D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan                                                          D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan