West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/108/2017

Sri Kartick Dalapati - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI General Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Asim Kumar Dutta

28 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                                                                                           

    Bibekananda Pramanik, President

and  

     Pulak Kumar Singha, Member. 

Complaint Case No.108/2017

                                                                    Sri Kartick Dalapati, S/o-Lt.Pulin Chandra Dalapoti

                                                         Vill-DMS College,Kaushallya, P.O.Kharagpur, P.S.-Kharagpur (Town)

                                                                                             Dist- Paschim Medinipur.  

                                                                                                                                 ………..……Complainant.

                                                                                                               Vs.

                                 1.      SBI General Insurance  Co. Ltd.

Represented by its Manager.4^th floor, b block, Apeejay house,

15,Park Street, Kolkata-700016,

                                  2.     Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Ltd., Kharagpur Branch

At Inda, P.O.& P.S.-Kharagpur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur, Pin-721305.

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

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

              For the O.Ps.               : Mr. Pinaki Sengupta, Advocate &

                                                      Mr. Subrata Bikash Das, Advocate.

 

                                                                                        Date of filling: - 30/06/2017

   Decided on    : - 28/05/2018

                               

ORDER

                          Pulak Kumar Singha, Member –In short the case of the complainant is that, complainant is a owner of vehicle bearing no.WB-33B/4284(Bolero) car which was duly insured with the O.P.No.1. Complainant purchased the car with the financial assistance of O.P.No.2. The car in question was met with an accident on 25.4.2016 as a result said vehicle got severe damaged. After receiving intimation from complainant the investigator of O.P.No.1inspected the damaged vehicle and took estimate from repairing centre and collected relevant papers and submitted report to O.P.No.1 but said O.P.No.1 repudiated the claim on the ground, that complainant suppressed the benefit of  No claim bonus. Complainant approached before this Forum for getting redressal as per prayer of                                                                                                                 Contd………P/2

 

                                

                                                                                                 -( 2 )-

his complaint.

                     O.P.No.1 contested the case by filing written objection denying the allegations of complainant, stating inter alia, that complainant suppressed the material fact, that he has received No Claim Bonus from previous policy. Complainant violated terms and condition of policy. Claim is not payable due to violation of policy terms and conditions. There is no deficiency on the part of this O.P. This O.P. prays for rejection of complaint.

                     O.P.No.2 contested the case by filing written objection stating that this O.P. is a financial institution and complainant purchased the vehicle in question with the financial assistance of  Rs.6,79,000/- from this O.P. Complainant has already paid all dues and O.P. has issued ‘No Dues Certificate’ to the complainant on 21.4.2016. This O.P. has no legal obligation with regards to insurance claim.                                                                                                

                                                         Decision with Reasons :

We carefully perused the complaint, written objection, evidence and documents filed by the parties. Complainant to prove his case adduced evidence by filing examination in chief with affidavit and he tendered himself as P.W.1 and he was cross examined by O.Ps and in cross examination of O.P.No.1, P.W.1 stated that he received two letters from O.P.No.1 and refund back Rs.6,883/- to O./P.No.1. O.P.No.1 adduced evidence by way of witness of one investigator, Madan Mohan Ghosh as OPW-1 and he was cross-examined by complainant. OPW-1,surveyor in his cross examination admitted that he received all the relevant documents from complainant including estimate of repairing cost and all these papers handed over to O.P.No.1. OPW-1 submitted one investigation report which is marked as (exibit-A).

It appears from the copy of insurance policy that according to the age of the vehicle depreciation of spares will be applicable as per schedule and from the copy of registration book, it appears that said car was registered on 09.02.2012 and accident occurred on 25.04.2016 i.e. after four years from the date of registration of the vehicle.  According to the depreciation scheduled 35% is applicable and surveyor also deducted the same ratio in the investigation report.  We find from the survey report i.e. (exbt. A) that surveyor after deduction allowed Rs.30,911/- for sum metal parts and 50% deducted in rubber parts an amount is Rs.6,482/- but we find from the estimate of repairing garage and purchased receipt of spares, investigator did not mentioned total spares in his report, we know that when a damaged vehicle is dismantle, besides the damaged portion some other portion also may be damaged and in case of front portion damaged, head light and frontal portion parts can be damaged and after repairing painting must have to do but investigator did not assessed the painting charges of Rs.25,000/- as per estimate.  Moreover approx

                                                                                                                                                       Contd………P/3

 

                                                                                  -( 3 )-

Rs.31,500/- labour charge was assessed but investigator allowed on Rs.20,000/-.  From the last page of (exbt.A) i.e investigation report investigator allowed only Rs.12,522/- is payable which is not clarified by the investigator.

After perusing all the documents we think that after depreciation Rs.30,911/- + Rs.6,482/-+ Rs.20,000/- (painting charges) and Rs.20,000/- as labour charges total Rs.87,393/- should be payable to the complainant.  O.P. repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that complainant suppressed that he has received “No Claim Bonus” from previous policy which is tantamount to violation of policy condition.  But it reveals from the evidence of PW-1, in cross-examination of OP, witness stated that after receiving information from O.P., complainant deposited Rs.6,883/- to the O.P. as NCB amount and according to law when O.P. accepted the said amount, then O.P. is estopped for his claim or defense.  Now such plea of O.P. in respect of suppression of No Claim Bonus is not applicable, as such this claim is payable and in the instant case O.P. is negligent and deficient in service. O.P. no.2 is a financier and they discharge no due certificate as such complainant has no claim against O.P. no.2.

In view of the discussion herein before we think that due to negligent act of O.P., complainant has been suffering mental pain and monetary loss for which complainant is entitled to get and order with compensation.

 Thus the complaint case succeeds.

                                      Hence, it is,

                                                        Ordered

                                                                   that the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against O.Ps. with cost.

                 O.P no.1 is directed to pay Rs.87,390/- as repairing cost, to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony and to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of order.

                 Failure to comply O.P. shall be liable to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as penal cost to be paid to the Legal Aid Fund of this Forum till realization of full payment.   

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

                

             Dictated and Corrected by me                       

                         Sd/-P. K. Singh.                                                                 Sd/- B. Pramanik.

                               Member                                                                               President

                                                                                                                       District Forum

                                                                                                                    Paschim Medinipur