In the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Burdwan.
(Nivedita Pally, G.T. Road, P.O.-Sripally, Dist.-Burdwan)
Consumer Complaint No. - 215/2014.
Date of filing - 05.11.2014.
Date of final order - 26.05.2016
Present:
i) Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal Honorable President.
ii) Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha Honorable Member.
Chayan Sarkar,
S/O. Late Mohan Lal Sarkar,
Residing at B2-109/2, V.K. Nagar,
Durgapur-713210,
Dist.: Burdwan. Complainant.
VERSUS
1. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,
having its office at Reliance Centre,
19, Walchand Hirachangd Marg,
Bailard Estate, Mumbai-400 001.
2. Branch Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Durgapur Branch, City Centre,
Durgapur-16. Opposite Parties.
Appeared for the complainant : Ld. Advocate Ashish Banerjee.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 : Ld. Advocate Subhajit Mondal.
JUDGEMENT
This is a case U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by Chayan Sarkar for an award directing the O.Ps. to pay Rs.2,56,097/- towards the amount as assessed value along with @18%
-2-
interest p.a. over such amount, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards mental pain, agony and harassment and to pay Rs.30,000/- towards litigation cost.
The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. WB 40R 5153, Engine No.AY76922, Chassis No.MAJ1XXMRJ1AY76922. The complainant was insured with the O.Ps. under a vehicle insurance scheme for which the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 6,718/- which included own damage premium, legal liability premium and other ancillary charges . The actual own damage premium was Rs.6,538/- but the complainant was given a deduction of 25% due to ‘No Claim Bonus’. The number of said policy is 150972231100079 and Cover Note No. of the said policy is 150908037372. The duration of the said policy was from 6.6.2012 to 5.6.2013. The complainant himself has a valid driving license and he was driving the said vehicle on 9.1.2013 proceeding from Bolpur to Durgapur. His parents and elder brother were also in the vehicle. While the vehicle reached Rajbadh in front of IOC, one truck pushed the vehicle of the complainant due to rash driving of the same to the other side of the divider where another truck coming from Durgapur side hit it causing the vehicle totally damaged and all the passengers including the complainant sustained severe injuries. Unfortunately, the father of the complainant subsequently died for such injuries. The complainant and other passengers were hospitalized and they are under treatment. Over said incident Kanksa P.S. Case No.16/2013 dated 13.1.2013 U/s. 279/337/338/427 IPC was started against offending vehicles. The said accident took place within the period of insurance coverage. Due to his serious injuries the complainant lodges the claim on 14.2.2013. Being asked the complainant obtained the estimated cost of repair of the vehicle in question at Rs.7,16,031.78 paisa, which is much better than the cost of new vehicle from Banerjee Ford, a showroom of Ford Vehicle, situated at Bhringi More, Benachity, Durgapur-13. After receiving said claim from the complainant, the O.Ps. registered the same but they did not take proper steps to settle the claim. The complainant on several occasions visited the office of the O.Ps. but no fruitful result was made. After receiving the claim from the complainant the O.Ps. asked the complainant to produce the damaged vehicle to the showroom of Banerjee Ford, though the vehicle was under the custody of the police in connection with the Kanksa P.S. Case as mentioned above. In spite of
-3-
that the complainant after taking permission from the Ld. ACJM, Durgapur produced said vehicle in the showroom of Banerjee Ford on 22.3.2013, since such date the vehicle is in said showroom. The O.Ps. appointed recognized surveyor to survey the vehicle but till this date no report from the surveyor is received by the complainant. Subsequently, to cover up their inaction, the O.Ps. made a proposal to the complainant to settle the claim by receiving Rs.1,75,000/- or actual cost. The question of acceptance of such proposal does not arise as the vehicle in question was totally damaged. On various pretext the O.Ps. killed time and lastly on 28.8.2013 they asked the complainant through representative to deposit all the papers afresh stating that the earlier Claim Manager has left the job. The complainant complied such request by depositing the required documents afresh but within the considerable period the matter has not been settled. The complainant filed D.F. Case No.74/2014. Fifteenth month after such filing, the complainant received a letter dated 24.4.2014 issued by one authorized signatory of the O.P. No.1 by which the complainant came to know that the claim of the complainant was closed with the allegation that the complainant did not make any communication in spite of service of letter dated 29.3.2014, 1.1.2014 and 2.2.2014. The complainant did not receive any such letters from the O.Ps. The letter dated 24.4.2014 is illegal and the O.Ps. have no right to close the claim of the complainant without settling the claim. The action taken by the O.Ps. clearly show that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. As the vehicle was totally damaged the complainant is entitled to get Rs.2,56,097/-which was fixed as value of the vehicle during the concerned period of the coverage with 18% interest over such amount of Rs.2,56,097/-. He is also entitled to get Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.30,000/- as cost of the proceeding. The complainant has further stated that D.F. Case No.74/2014 was withdrawn with liberty to file the complaint afresh and within the specified period the present D.F. Case No.215/2014 was instituted and as such this case is not barred by limitation.
The O.Ps. contested this case by filing written version while denying the entire claim of the complainant and stating inter-alia that the O.Ps. being intimated about the accident, registered the claim of the complainant immediately and employed independent surveyor for assessment of loss and on the basis of the report of loss assessor, requested the complainant to
-4-
settle the claim amicably repeatedly but the complainant neglected such requests and ultimately this O.Ps. were compelled to close the claim. This O.Ps. have further stated that there was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and accordingly the case liable to be dismissed with cost.
DECISION WITH REASON
To prove his case the complainant by filing a petition made a prayer before this Forum to accept the contents of the complaint as their evidence on affidavit and this Forum accepted the same considering that the contents of the complaint is supported by an affidavit. The complainant has also filed a certified copy of the order No.06 dated 5.6.2014 passed by this Forum. From this copy it appears that this Forum granted leave to the complainant to file the complaint afresh and subsequently in compliance with such order the complainant filed the present complaint. So, the question of limitation in filing this complaint, does not arise.
From the side of the complainant a photocopy of the letter dated 24.4.2014 has been filed, from which it appears that the O.Ps. closed the claim of the complainant on the allegation that the complainant did not make any communication in spite of service of letter dated 29.3.2014, 1.1.2014 and the 2.2.2014. The complainant in the complaint petition has specifically stated that he did not receive any such letter. From the side of the O.Ps., the copies of those letters have not been filed and no evidence has been adduced by the O.Ps. showing service of said three letters upon the complainant. The letter dated 24.4.2014 shows that a proposal was given to the complainant by the O.Ps. to settle the claim on receiving Rs.1,75,000/- or on repairing basis where claim would be reimbursed after submission of vehicle repairing bill on completion of repairing and inspection. It has already been stated in the foregoing lines that the complainant obtained the estimated repairing cost of Rs. 7,16,,031-78 paisa from the Banerjee Ford, a showroom of Ford Vehicle, situated at Bhiringi More, Benachity, Durgapur-13 and such estimated cost is much more than the cost of a new vehicle. This specific case of the complainant has not been challenged by the O.Ps. So, from it, it is clear that the vehicle in question was totally damaged. From the evidence on record it is clear that the vehicle in question was still lying in the
-5-
Banerjee Ford, a showroom of Ford Vehicle. The vehicle in question is not in the custody of the complainant. From the side of the O.Ps. no evidence has been adduced to prove their case. The O.Ps. have not submitted the surveyor’s report. So, this Forum is not in a position to know what was assessed as loss amount of the vehicle by the surveyor.
It is essential to mention here, that in the written complaint the complainant has stated that over said accident Kanksa P.S. Case No.16/2013 U/s. 279/337/338/427 IPC was started and the complainant to prove said fact has filed the photocopies of the written complaint and formal FIR. This specific case of the complainant has not been challenged by the O.Ps.
The material on record clearly show that the vehicle in question was totally damaged due to accident caused on 9.1.2013 and for the period of insurance, the value of the vehicle was assessed at Rs.2,56,097/- . So, the O.Ps. have liability to pay such amount of Rs.2,56,097/- as assessed value for totally damage of the vehicle, to the complainant. But the O.Ps. have not paid the same and illegally they closed the claim of the complainant by a letter dated 24.4.2014. This fact clearly shows that there is/was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. So, the O.Ps. are liable to pay interest @ 9% over the assessed value of Rs.2,56,097/- from 14.2.2013, the date of lodging the claim up to the date of payment, to the complainant. The O.Ps. are also liable to pay an amount as compensation for mental agony and harassment of the complainant and to pay an amount as litigation cost to the complainant. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony of the complaint and to pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost by the O.Ps. to the complainant, will meet the ends of justice.
In view of our above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has been able to prove his case and the complainant is entitled to get an award directing the O.Ps. to pay Rs.2,56,097/- as assessed value of the vehicle along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 14.02.2013 the date of lodging the claim, up to the date of actual payment of such assessed value, directing the O.Ps. to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony of the complaint and directing the O.Ps. to pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
In view of the above observations the case succeeds.
Fees paid is correct. Hence, it is
-6-
Ordered
that the complaint case being No.215/2014 is allowed on contest, accordingly the complainant do get an award directing the O.Ps. jointly or severally to pay Rs.2,56,097/- as assessed cost of the damaged vehicle with 9% interest per annum over such amount from 14.2.2013 the date of lodging the claim, up to the date of realization , to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony of the complainant and to pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order failing which the complainant will be at liberty to put this order in execution in accordance with law.
Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
(Asoke Kr. Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President,
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Asoke Kr. Mandal)
President,
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Pankaj Kr. Sinha)
Member,
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
