DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE NO:  CC-  67   of  2016

 

Sri Narayan Datta,

S/O- Sri Gourchand Datta,

Malaynagar, P.O. Renters Colony,

West Tripura.   ..........Complainant.

 

  ___VERSUS___

 

1. The Authorized Signatory,

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited,

E-8, EPIP, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur,

Rajasthan- 302 022.

 

2. The Branch Manager, 

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Local office situated at Shibnagar, College Road,

Near Bandhan Marriage House,

Agartala,West Tripura.

 

3. The Proprietor,

Joyram Mechanical Workshop at Malaynagar,

near By Pass Road, Agartala, 

P.S. Sreenagar, West Tripura. ........Opposite parties.

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the complainant :  Sri Iman Banik,

  Advocates.

 

For the O.P. No.2 : Sri Bhaskar Deb,,

 Sri Utpal Bhowmik,

 Sri Debdas Bakshi,

 Sri Debjoy Majumdar,

Advocates.

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 16.02.2017

 

J U D G M E N T

 

This case arises on the petition filed by one Narayan Datta U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that his vehicle Tata Truck was insured with the O.P. Period of coverage was from 26.12.15 to 25.12.16. During the coverage period on 17.02.16 the vehicle met accident and badly damaged. Spot survey was done by O.P. Insurance company. Then it was shifted to Joyram Mechanical Workshop at Malaynagar for repairing. On careful inspection damage was estimated to Rs.2,85,113/- by the Proprietor of Joyram Mechanical Workshop. Accordingly claim made for payment of the same amount. But Insurance company paid only Rs.41,500/-. The genuine claim was not entertained. The value of the vehicle estimated in the policy of Rs.5,19,750/- and premium Rs.23,221/- was paid. Petitioner prayed for damage cost Rs.2,85,113/-, cost of litigation Rs.20,000/- and also Rs.50,000/- for harassment and deficiency of service. 

 

 2. O.P. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that the estimate was prepared before taking the vehicle into the workshop. Company appointed surveyor and assessed the damage. On inspection the surveyor estimated the cost of repairing to Rs.41,500/-. Company is ready to pay the amount and there is no deficiency of service by the O.P. Insurance company.

 

3. On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination:

(I) How much  damage was caused due to the accident of the vehicle and what estimate of damage is correct?

(II) Whether there was deficiency of service by O.P. and petitioner is entitled to get compensation?

 

4. Petitioner side produced copy of Insurance policy, repair estimate, copy of letter of reminder, Advocate's notice marked as Exhibit- 1 Series.

 

5. O.P. on the other hand produced the photocopy of the Motor Claims Approval for Rs.41,500/-.

 

On the basis of evidence given by both the parties we shall now determine the points.

 

Findings and decision:

 

7. We have gone through the Insurance Policy Certificate. Own damage is covered as per schedule of policy. Premium was Rs.23,221/-. The accident occurred within the policy coverage period as it covered from 26.12.2015 to 25.12.2016. From perusal of the policy certificate details of the coverage not found. IDV for the vehicle was Rs.5,19,750/-. We have gone through the repair estimate given by Joyram Mechanical workshop but the Proprietor of Joyram Mechanical Workshop who prepared the estimate is not examined. Cost of fuel injection pump was shown Rs.1,08,943/-, shield glass rubber channel was shown for Rs.7,110/-. Rs.99,000/- claimed for labour charge. O.P. appointed a surveyor and he estimated the cost of damage Rs.41,500/- O.P. produced no evidence in this case. One letter of Insurance company produced. From the letter it is found that Sanjay Debroy, IRDA surveyor was appointed and claim was finalized at Rs.41,500/-. How the estimate was prepared and on what basis not clarified. Surveyor report not produced.

 

8. Petitioner filed Advocate's notice claiming Rs.2,85,113/- as estimated by Joyram Mechanical workshop. Estimate was prepared on 26.02.16, after 9 days of the accident. The mechanical Workshop owner is not the authorized person to assess the damage. Only the licensed surveyor is authorized to assess the damage after accident. Petitioner is entitled to get the damage actually caused by the accident not the other damage that  could have taken place before accident by the running of the vehicle. Petitioner in his evidence stated that his claim is genuine and based on documents. But his documents is only the photocopy of the repair estimate of Joyram Mechanical workshop. The proprietor or the person who repaired were not examined and evidence not given. So, basing on the photocopy of repair estimate it is difficult to determine the actual damage. 

 

9. On the other hand, Shriram General Insurance Company produced no evidence. Only one photocopy of motor claim approval is given. The claim is approved for payment of Rs.41,500/-, labour charge given Rs.30,000/-, glass parts Rs.6000/-, metal parts Rs.1650/-. Depreciation percentage given is 35% - 50%. It is not known why this depreciation made. Surveyor report also not produced to justify the estimate of the damage. It is the duty of the Insurance company to assess the damage and place the right picture before the consumer, policy holder. This was not done. A whimsical damage was assessed and payment offered. It is deficiency of service. 

 

10. It is only argued that G.D. Entry was not made before repair. But this is not mandatory when the accidental damage is admitted and payment is offered. From the careful scrutiny of all the evidence on record it is found that there was deficiency of service by the Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. as no step taken for proper assessment of the damage. On the other hand the petitioner also did not take proper step for assessing the damage and claimed amount on the basis of photocopy of repaired estimate from Joyram Mechanical Workshop. The damage of fuel injection pump not proved by convincing evidence. So we consider that petitioner on exclusion of this item is entitled to get Rs.1,65,000/-. Petitioner is also entitled to get Rs.10,000/- for deficiency of service by the O.P. and Rs.5,000/- for litigation cost. In total, petitioner is entitled to get Rs.1,80,000/- instead of Rs.41,500/- as offered. 

 

11. We direct Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. to pay Rs.1,80,000/- to the petitioner for damage of the vehicle and deficiency of service. Payment is to be made within one month if not paid it will carry interest. Both the points are decided accordingly.

 

12. In view of our above findings over the two points we direct the O.P. Insurance company to pay Rs.1,80,000/- to the petitioner within a period of one month, cost of repairing and deficiency of service and litigation cost. Make payment within one month. If not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.

 

 

   Announced.

 

 

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.