In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.368/2010.
1) M/s. Vishwanath Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
8/1, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata-27. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.,
I T Park, Unit No.T-2-2A, Plot No.DN-62,
Sector-V, SaltLake, Kolkata-91.
2) The Manager, M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Chitrakoot, Room No.42, 4th Floor,
230A, AJC Bose Road, Kolkata-20, P.S. Bhowanipore. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Order No. 25 Dated 07-10-2013.
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant is the regd. owner of the vehicle bearing regn. no.NL 01A/9545 and the said vehicle was insured with the o.p. under the above mentioned policy since 25.5.09 time to time renewed and last effective date of commencement of insurance 29.7.09 valid upto 28.7.10.
O.p. no.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having regd. office at the address, as provided in the cause title hereinabove. O.p. is a provider of various insurance facilities to numerous individual and/or others and such facilities are provided by o.p. only lieu of premiums payable by the concerned policy holders.
On 9.6.10 at 8-30 p.m. while moving towards destination at Ranchi the said vehicle fell in accident at Baundu. On 11.6.10 complainant informed the o.p. regarding the said accident, on 25.6.10 o.p. authorized servce station received the said accident vehicle. it was reported that to save from rash driving by another vehcle coming from opposite direction and also to avoid from vital and major accident, the said vehicle dashed with a tree and lastly fell down into a ditch (filled up with water) causing damage to the from glass, front portion of the vehicle along with its running engine.
Accordingly, complainant submitted motor insurance claim form along with necessary documents to the office on 5.7.10 which o.p. acknowledged and o.p. arranged inspection by o.p. authorized service station for the said accident. On 29.7.10 a report was issued b y o.p. authorized service station wherein it was reported as well as suspected that the reason of that damage occurred due to water entry in the cylinder i.e. is hydrostatic blast and also it is cleared in the said report that after dismantling the full engine the actual reason of that damage will be given.
On the basis of the said report by the authorized service station, o.p. issued a letter to the complainant wherein o.p. observed from the claim papers that the damages of the cabin and tallying with cause and nature of accident narrated in the claim form and the same has been considered but you are unable to entertain the damage to the engine block as it is not due to accidental external means and falls outside the scope of the policy.
The authorized service centre have estimated and advised to the complainant to pay Rs.1,70,000/- for repairing the damaged portion of the said vehicle. Complainant immediately informed the same to o.p. but o.p. did not take any action for payment the said amount to the complainant till the date.
Complainant at last sent an advocate letter to o.p. on 29.9.10 for payment but till the date they did not take any action and/or any reply to the complainant’s advocate letter. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with reasons:
In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record we find that no document has been filed towards repairing cost through invoice as has been desired by the o.ps.. Therefore, we are unable to assess the exact cost towards repair. Hence complainant fails to substantiate its case.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest without cost.
