West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/131/2017

Sri Kshudiram Bera - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.B.I. General Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Asim Kumar Dutta

21 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

  Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

                                                                                                             and 

     Sagarika Sarkar, Member.

 

Complaint Case No.131/2017

 

             Sri Kshudiram Bera, S/o Late Sudhir Chandra Bera, Vill. & P.O. Secondary, P.S. Daspur,

           District - Paschim Medinipur.   

                                                                                                                    ………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

1. S.B.I. General Insurance Co. Ltd., notice to be served- Medinipur office, State Bank of India, Rabindranagar, P.O. Medinipur, P.S. Kotwali, District- Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721101,
2. S.B.I. General Insurance Co. Ltd., notice to be served- Authorized officer, S.B.I. General Insurance Co. Ltd. plot no.821(P) J.L. no. 74, Gandhi More, City Centre, near Junction Mall, Durgapur City Centre, West Bengal, PIN-713216.

                                                                                                 .....……….….Opp. Parties.

                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Asim Kumar Dutta, Advocate.

            For the O.P.             : Mr. Pinaki Sengupta, Advocate.

                                                   

                                                       Date of filing : 18/08/2017.

                                                           Decided on    :  21/03/2018

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President –This consumer complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act has been filed by the complainant Sri Kshudiram Bera against the O.P.-S.B.I. General Insurance Company  alleging deficiency in service on their part in repudiating the claim of insurance of the vehicle of the complainant.

                Contd……………………P/2.                                                               

 

 

                                                              

                                                                                              ( 2 )

              Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows:-

              The complainant is the registered owner of a truck bearing no.WB-33B/3692 and he insured his said truck with the O.P.-S.B.I. General Insurance Company Ltd. vide policy no.0000000002364275-01 covering the period from 18.12.2015 to 17.12.2016.  Unfortunately the said truck of the complainant met with a road traffic accident on 23.01.2016 under Goaltore P.S. and major portion of the truck was fully damaged.  After accident,  Goaltore Police Station M.A. case no.1/2016 dated 25.01.2016 was started.  The complainant informed the said matter to the office of the O.P. on basis of which,  O.P. registered claim no.234202 in respect of that policy.  O.P. engaged one spot surveyor for assessing the damage and a certified mechanic named Kanailal Thakur examined the vehicle and submitted report on 25.01.2016 before the officer-in-charge, Goaltore police station. After such survey, the complainant repaired his damaged vehicle in an authorized garage named Friends Automobile Works at Mechogram and he had incurred a sum of Rs.2,01,000/- for such repairing.  The engaged surveyor of the O.P. received original bills from the garage more than one year ago.  Thereafter on 19.08.2016, O.P. sent a letter to the complainant asking him to produce driving licence and original road challan and after receiving the said letter, the complainant sent a xerox copies of road challan and driving license along with other relevant papers on 24.09.2016 with an advocate’s letter.  In spite of that,  the O.P. intentionally withheld the genuine claim of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.-Insurance Company.  It is stated that the complainant is an unemployed person and for self-employment, he purchased the truck in question for earning his livelihood.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the O.P.- Insurance Company to pay the repairing cost of  Rs.2,01,000/- of the vehicle with harassment cost of Rs.50,000/- and interest.

                   Both the O.Ps have contested this case by filling a written version.  

                   Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the O.P.-Insurance Company that the name of the driver differs under claim intimation and driving licence submitted and driving licence submitted with claim form. It is stated that 19.08.2016, the O.P. sent a reminder letter to the complainant with a request to submit certain documents for settling his claim at the earliest but despite receipt of that letter,  the complainant neither supplied any document nor gave any reason to the O.P. regarding non-submission of the documents.  It is further stated that the claim was intimated over phone by the complainant and it was informed to the O.P. that the name of the driver was one Jayanto who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident having his D.L. no.2763BWN2012.  This information was provided at the time of registration of claim but

Contd……………………P/3.

                                                                

 

                                                                                               ( 3 )

during inspection,  the complainant produced D.L. for some other person named Sk. Saiful instead of the earlier name Jayanto.  It is further stated that after intimation of the claim, the O.P. deputed a surveyor named Partha Samaddar  who assessed the claim on repairing basis and submitted  a final survey report dated 20.05.2016, thereby assessing the loss / damage of the vehicle at Rs.96092/-.  The said assessment is not payable as the complainant suppressed material facts regarding the actual driver and for non-production of documents as required by the O.P. vide their letter dated 19.08.2016.  It is stated that therefore the claim is  still pending for want of those documents and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. for settling the claim and the petition of complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.  

             To prove his case, the complainant Sri Kshudiram Bera has examined himself as PW-1 by tendering a written examination-in-chief and during his evidence, few documents were marked as exbt. 1 to 9 respectively and some bills and vouchers were marked as X- series for identification.  On the other hand, O.P. adduced no oral evidence but on prayer of the O.P. and after hearing both sides, one document namely a surveyor’s report has been marked as exbt. A.

                                                                 Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?
2. Is the complainant a consumer of the O.P.-Insurance Company?
3. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.-Insurance Company?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?    

                   

Decision with reasons

           Point nos.1 to 4:-

For the sake of convenience and brevity,  all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

Maintainability of this case has not been questioned by any of the parties at the time of final hearing of this case.  We also do not find anything adverse regarding maintainability of this case.

It is not denied and disputed that the complainant Kshudiram Bera insured his vehicle bearing no.WB-33B/3692 with the O.P.-Insurance Company vide policy no.0000000002364275-01 covering the period from 18.12.2015 to 17.12.2016.  It is also undisputed that during the said validity period,  the disputed vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and after such accident,  the complainant lodged claim of insurance of the

Contd……………………P/4.

                                                                

 

                                                                                                ( 4 )

policy before the O.P.-Insurance Company.  Therefore it is held that the complainant is a consumer under the O.P.-Insurance Company.

     Regarding deficiency in service  on the part of the O.P.-Insurance Company, it is the case of the complainant that although he immediately lodged claim of insurance alongwith all relevant documents after the occurrence of accident of his truck on 23.01.2016, but the O.P. intentionally withheld the genuine claim of the complainant by avoiding settlement of claim. It appears from the written version of the O.P. that after such intimation of claim,  they deputed a surveyor named Sri Partha Samaddar, who assessed the loss on repair basis at Rs.96,092/- vide his survey report dated 20.05.2016.  The present petition of complaint has been filed on 18.08.2017 for non-settlement of claim of insurance.  It thus appears that even after submission of survey report on 20.05.2016, the O.P.-Insurance Company did not settle the claim of insurance.  According to the O.P., as disclosed in their w/v, that the said assessment is not payable as the complainant suppressed material fact regarding actual driver of the vehicle on the date of occurrence.  From the cross-examination of PW-1, the complainant,  we find that it was suggested by the O.P. to PW-1 that  Sk. Saiful Ali was not the driver of the vehicle but one Jayanta had been driving the vehicle at the time of accident, which PW-1 strongly denied.  According to the O.P, as it reveals from the w/v that although the complainant stated in his claim petition that the name of the driver as Jayanta but the complainant produced another driving license of one Sk. Saiful Ali.  Further according to the O.P. they therefore asked the complainant vide their letters to submit the driving license of said Jayanta but the complainant did not produce the same for which the claim was not settled.  To prove their said case, the O.P-Insurance Co. did neither examine said surveyor nor did they produce the claim intimation to show and to prove that the complainant mentioned the name of Jayanta as his driver.  Said claim intimation is very much  in the custody of O.P but they withheld the said document for some ulterior motive.  Therefore the said ground of delaying settlement of claim of insurance is not only without basis but it also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. In view of that we are to hold that the O.P.-Insurance Company is guilty of deficiency in service for non-settlement of claim of insurance of the complainant for which the complainant has just cause of action to file this case and he is therefore entitled to get the reliefs, as prayed for.

   Complainant has prayed for an award of claim of insurance of Rs.2,01,000/- towards cost of repairing of the vehicle and an award of compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

   Regarding the claim of insurance towards cost of repairing of the vehicle, the complainant has stated that he had to incur a sum of Rs.2,01,000/- for repairing of his vehicle at Friends Automobile Works and in support of such contention, he produced some bills and vouchers which were marked X- series for identification.  No witness has been

Contd……………………P/5.

                                                                

 

                                                                                                     ( 5 )

examined by the complainant to prove those bills and vouchers. On the contrary, it appears that admittedly the engaged surveyor of the O.P. assessed the loss /damage of the vehicle at Rs.96,092/-.  Said surveyor’s report has been marked as exbt. A without objection,  It is the settled law that surveyor’s report carries significance and it should be relied on.  Therefore we find reasons to accept the report of surveyor (Exbt.A) and to hold that the complainant is entitled to get the said some of Rs.96,092/- towards the claim of insurance.  That apart,  since there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P., as we held above, so the complainant is entitled to get an award of compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental harassment.  

      All the points are accordingly disposed of.

      In the result, the complaint case succeeds.

                                                   Hence, it is,

                                                Ordered,

                                that the complaint case no.131/2017  is allowed on contest with cost against the O.P.-Insurance Company Ltd.

     O.P.-Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.96,092/-  to the complainant with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till payment.  O.P.-Insurance Company is further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

      All such payment shall be made within a month from this date of order i.d. 10% penal interest shall carry over the amount of award.

                           Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

          Dictated and Corrected by me

                     Sd/-B. Pramanik.                   Sd/-P.K. Singha          Sd/- S. Sarkar          Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                           President                                 Member                    Member                    President

                                                                                                                                          District Forum

                                                                                                                                      Paschim Medinipur