Consumer Complaint No. 75 of 2016
Date of filing: 28.4.2016 Date of disposal: 05.7.2017
Complainant: Siddique Hossain Middya, S/o. Rabiul Middya, Bijra, Sobapur, PO: Durgapur – 713 205, District: Burdwan.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., G. T. road, P.C. Chatterjee market, 3rd Floor, A-Block, Asansol, PO: Asansol, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 303.
Present: Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Tapan Kumar Jash.
Appeared for the Opposite Party: Ld. Advocate, Saurav Kumar Mitra.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice as the Op did settle his insurance claim.
The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that being the registered owner of the questioned truck which was under the coverage of an insurance policy obtained from the OP and the same was valid for the period from 30.6.2014 to 29.6.2015. Under the said policy the risk of own damage, as well as, the third party and employees were covered. During validity of the insurance policy the vehicle met with an accident on 20.6.2015 on Durgapur Expressway at Dadpur and due to such accident the front portion of the said vehicle was totally damaged. The matter was reported to Dadpur Police Station. The complainant informed the information of accident to the OP and damage of the vehicle on 22.6.2015 and lodged an insurance claim with the OP. Upon receipt of the information about the accidental damage of the vehicle the OP appointed Surveyor who after survey of the damaged vehicle and collected all vehicular documents including estimate of repairing cost to the tune of Rs. 1,76,000=00, submitted his report to the OP. Thereafter, the OP informed the complainant by issuing letter dated 02.9.2015 to submit some documents and accordingly the complainant submitted the same to the OP in the third week of September, 2015. As the OP did not settle his claim the complainant went to the office of the OP in the first week of December, 2015 when he was asked by the dealing clerk of the office of the OP to submit some documents again because the documents submitted by him were not traceable. Accordingly, the complainant sent all the documents to the office of the OP along with a forwarding letter on 09.02.2016 through regd. post but inspite of receipt of all documents and the Surveyor’s report, the OP did not settle the claim, rather kept itself silent over the matter, which is illegal and arbitrary, as well as, deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Due to non-settlement of the claim the complainant had to face mental pain, agony and harassment for a prolonged period and having no alternative the complainant has approached before this ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 1,76,000=00 towards the repairing cost of the damaged insured vehicle, Compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000=00 due to mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000=00.
The petition of complaint has been contested by the OP by filing written version contending that an insurance policy was issued in faovur of the complainant covering the risk of the vehicle which was valid for the period from 30.6.2014 to 29.6.2015 subject to terms conditions stipulated thereof. And intimation of the damaged vehicle due to accident was lodged with the OP. this op appointed an Investigator, namely, Biplob Ray for investigation on various aspects regarding the damaged vehicle and also appointed the Surveyor to assess the loss. The complainants were asked for the documents by issuing letter dated 26.6.2015, 03.7.2014 & 14.7.2015 but the complainant did not produce the documents. In the meantime the Investigator submitted his report on 02.9.2015 and the Surveyor submitted his report on 20.7.2015. The complainants were requested on several occasions for production of the documents with a view to settle the claim but as those were not produced, the OP by issuing a letter dated 14.9.2015 had declared the claim as no claim. So there is no deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice on the part of the OP because the complainant had failed to produce the required documents to the OP. But the complainant by issuing a letter had intimated this OP that the documents were sent on 09.01.2016 but as there is deliberate on the part of the complainant according to the OP he is not entitled to get any relief. The OP has further stated that the contract of insurance is based on good faith and trust. As the complainant has failed to discharge his liability he is not entitled to get any relief as sought for. According to the OP as the complaint is devoid of any merit the same is liable to dismiss with exemplary cost.
The complainant has adduced evidence on affidavit along with some documents in support of his contention. The OP has adduced evidence on affidavit along with some documents. The surveyor’s report has been filed supported by affidavit. The OP put some questionnaire to the Complainant and the Complainant has replied the same.
We have carefully perused the record; papers and documents filed by the parties and heard argument at length advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the parties. It is seen by us that there are some admitted facts in the case in hand i.e. being the registered owner of the truck the Complainant obtained an insurance policy from the OP covering the risk of the said vehicle, the policy was valid for the period from 30.06.2014 to 19.06.2015, during validity of the policy the insured vehicle met with an accident on 20.06.2015 on Durgapur Express Way at Dadpur, due to such accident the front portion of the insured vehicle got total damage, the matter was reported to the concerned police station, the incident was duly informed by the Complainant to the OP on 22.06.2015, insurance claim was lodged by filing the claim form along with relevant documents, upon receipt of the claim form surveyor was appointed by the OP, the surveyor surveyed the damaged vehicle, the Complainant submitted the estimated repairing cost of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.1,76,000=00, the surveyor collected all vehicular documents including the estimated repairing cost from the repairing centre, the surveyor submitted the report to the OP, the OP directed the Complainant by issuing letter dated 02.09.2015 for submission of some documents, the Complainant submitted the same, due to non-receipt of any information regarding settlement of his claim the Complainant went to the office of the OP, The Complainant was further told by the OP to submit the documents again as the submitted documents could not be traced out, the Complainant again sent the required documents to the office of the OP by issuing letter dated 09.01.2016, inspite of receipt of all the documents and the surveyor report the OP did not decide the claim of the Complainant, due to such inaction of the OP the Complainant being frustrated and dissatisfied has filed this complaint. The allegation of the Complainant is that the OP did not bother to decide his legitimate insurance claim till filing of this complaint. Hence the Complainant has prayed for certain reliefs.
The contention of the OP is that as the Complainant did not extend co-operation with the surveyor as he could not submit several important and required documents to the surveyor at the time of survey and in this respect though the OP had issued three letters dated 26.06.2015, 03.07.2015 and 14.07.2015, but the Complainant did not submit those documents, hence the OP being compelled closed the claim file of the Complainant as ‘No Claim’. According to the OP as the information of repudiation of the claim was duly intimated to the Complainant by issuing repudiation letter dated 02.09.2015, hence there is no deficiency in service on its part and thus the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this OP as sought for.
During argument the Ld. Counsel for the OP was asked by us to show as to whether the Complainant had received the three letters dated 26.06.2015, 03.07.2015 and 14.07.2015 or not issued on behalf of the OP directing the Complainant to submit some documents. But the OP has failed to satisfy us in this respect. Therefore as there is no iota of evidence adduced by the OP to prove that inspite of receipt of three letters the Complainant had failed to comply with the same, hence the contention of the letter dated 02.09.2015 on which the OP has placed its reliance and through which the claim was repudiated, has no basis at all. This complaint is filed by the Complainant due to non-settlement of the claim. But the letter dated 02.09.2015 reveals that the claim was repudiated, hence there is every doubt as to whether the Complainant had received the letter dated 02.09.2015 at all. If that be so, then the claim of the Complainant and the pleading of the complaint will be otherwise.
We have noticed that sSurveyor was appointed by the OP to survey the damaged vehicle and after completion of his work the Surveyor submitted his report. The said report has been filed on affidavit. From the Surveyor’s report it is evident that the surveyor has assessed the loss and damage of the damaged vehicle to the tune of Rs.1,41,575=00. The said report has not been challenged by the contesting parties; hence the report got its finality. There are several judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon’ble NCDRC, wherein Their Lordships have held that the Surveyor’s report being an important document and evidence cannot be brushed aside without assigning any cogent reason. In the case in hand as the Surveyor’s report is still exists, hence in our view the OP is under obligation to comply with the direction and advice of the Surveyor appointed by it. Therefore the Complainant is entitled to get repairing cost of the damaged vehicle as per the assessment of the Surveyor.
It is true that inspite of receipt of the Surveyor’s report the OP did not settle the insurance claim of the Complainant for a prolonged period and for the first time the Complainant got knowledge about repudiation of the claim after receipt of the written version along with documents. Such action of the OP can be termed as deficient because for such action the Complainant had to suffer for a considerable period, for which the Complainant is entitled to get compensation from the OP. By filing this complaint the Complainant has to incur some expenses, so in our opinion the Complainant is also entitled to get litigation cost.
Going by the foregoing discussion, hence it is
O r d e r e d
that the Consumer Complaint being No. 75/2016 is allowed on contest with cost. The OP is directed to make payment of Rs.1, 41,575=00 to the Complainant towards the repairing cost of the damaged insured vehicle within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this judgment, in default; the said amount shall carry interest @6% p.a. for the default period. The OP is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1, 000=00 as compensation to the Complainant due to harassment, mental pain and agony and litigation cost of Rs.500=00 to the Complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this judgment, in default, the Complainant will be at liberty to put the entire decree/order in execution as per provisions of law.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
Dictated and corrected by me.
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) (Silpi Majumder)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
