IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SONITPUR AT TEZPUR
District: Sonitpur
Present: Smti A. Devee
President,
District Consumer D.R Forum,
Sonitpur, Tezpur
Sri P.Das
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonitpur
Smti S.Bora
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum,Sonitpur
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.25/2017
1.Sri Sanjay Deka : Complainants
S/o Deban Deka
Resident of Vill: Kalibari Chahar, Tezpur
Vs.
1.Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd : Opp. party
E-8,EPIP,RIICO Insustrial Area Sitapura
Jaipur, Rajasthan-302022
2.Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.,
101/105 1st Floor, B Wing Shiv Chambers
Sector-11,C.B.D Belapur
Navi Mumbai 400614
3.Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.
Tezpur Branch,P.O & P.S Tezpur
Dist: Sonitpur, Assam
Appearance:
Mr.Kishore Deka,Adv. : For Complainant
Mr. Sudesh Kr Singh,Adv : For Opp. party No.1
None appeared : For Opp.party No.2
Mr P.S,Sethi, Adv : For Opp.party No.3
Date of argument heard : 08-05-18 & 17-05-18
Date of Judgment : 23-05-18
J U D G M E N T
- The facts leading to the complaint, in brief, are that Complainant’s Bolero Pick-up vehicle No.AS-12-AC-2157 which was under hypothecation of opposite party No.3 met with an accident on 02-11-2015 in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and suffered total damage. Police of Bhalukpong Police Station, West Kameng, Arunachal Pradesh, registered a case being numbered 25/2015. All the relevant and necessary papers for Insurance claim were submitted to the opposite party No.3. As nothing was forthcoming as regards the insurance claim despite elapsation of a year, Complainant sent a letter to the opposite party No.1 on 27-12-2016 through his Advocate, Kishor Deka. Thereafter, on enquiry for loan account statement, the Complainant could find that an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- was deposited by the Insurance Company into the loan account on 05-12-16 in place of Rs.4,11,247/- as the sum assured under the Insurance policy. Complainant had alleged that the opposite parties, in failing to maintain transparency in the whole matter, and in settling the matter amongst themselve without intimating the Complainant had thus rendered a deficient service towards him. Complainant has prayed relief of Rs. 4,11,247/- with interest @9% p.a on an amount of Rs.2,91,247/- w.e.f 05-12-2016.
- None of the opposite parties could file written version. Vide order dated 03-01-2018 prayer to accept the written version filed for the opposite party Nos 1 & 3 was rejected in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in ‘New India Assurance Co.Ltd vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd’ reported in AIR 2016 SC 86.However the opposite parties were allowed to take part in hearing. Accordingly, the opposite party Insurance Company came forward to cross-examine the Complainant. Complainant tendered his evidence-in-chief on affidavit and exhibited several documents thereunder.
We have carefully gone through the entire materials available on record and the written argument as well submitted by Complainant, opposite party No.1 and 3.The following points are drawn up for determination of the dispute.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
(i)Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party
Insurance Company?
(ii)Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for
DECISION ON THE POINTS WITH DISCUSSION
3.POINT No.(i): Learned Advocate Sri S.K.Singh lay his hands on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in ‘United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mils Limited’ (2000)(10) SCC 19) and submitted that the Insurance Company on the basis of Survey Report of a duly appointed qualified Surveyor who had assessed the extent of damage of the vehicle deposited an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- in the loan account of the Complainant.According to the learned counsel Mr Singh, the report of the Surveyor becomes the decisive factor in deciding the amount to be awarded to the Complainant as the Surveyor is the expert and competent person to give opinion as to extent of damages of the
vehicle.The opinion of the Surveyor cannot be set aside without due consideration as held by the hon’ble Supreme Court in several judgments including the one referred to above.To counter the Report of the Surveyor, the Complainant could bring nothing, Mr. Singh asserted.
4. The opposite parties, as noted earlier, inspite of having sufficient opportunities, failed to submit written version. However, they preferred to cross-examine the Complainant.During cross-examination of the Complainant the opposite party No.1 has brought the fact of estimate of repairing cost made by the Surveyor of the Insurance Company.Having found the Report of the Surveyor a most valuable document to adjudicate upon the matter in controversy the opposite party No.1 was directed to produce the Report and accordingly the same was produced. We have critically examined the Report.
5. It has already been noted that at the time of his evidence the Complainant had exhibited 14 nos of documents. We have gone through the documents. Since there is no dispute regarding Insurance of the vehicle in question with the opposite party No.1 and damage caused to the vehicle as a result of accident that occurred on 01-11-2015 at Pinjuli in the district of West Kameng in Arunachal Pradesh for the purpose of decision on the point under discussion, we have found the following documents most relevant.
- Ext-7- MVI Report
- Ext-8- Advocates Notice dtd 27-12-2016 issued to the opposite party
No.1
- Ext-11- Postal Registration Receipt of sending Ext-8
- Ext-12- Delivery Report of Ext-8
- Report of the Surveyor appointed by the opposite party Insurance Company (marked by us as document “X”).
7. Evidently, the opposite party No.1 failed to rebut receipt of Ext-8. In Ext-8 for the Complainant, his Advocate asked the opposite party to let the Complainant know about the step taken for releasing the amount claimed and also requested the opposite party No.1 to settle the matter within 7 days of receipt of the notice. As per Ext-12 notice was delivered to the opposite party No.1 on 31-12-2016.This complaint was filed on 14-08-2017. Notice of this complaint case was served upon the opposite party No.1 on 24-08-2017.As per document “X” date of survey is 05-01-2018. That means, during the pendency of this case only and that too after service of notice of the case upon the opposite party No.1 survey was conducted. Furthermore, document”X” reveals that place of survey is-Jorhat. The opposite party No.1 nowhere has stated how survey was conducted at Jorhat. That apart, a simple perusal of the materials available on record clearly demonstrates that no intimation either to this Forum or to the Complainant was given about the survey though it was conducted during the pendency of this case. By cross-examining the Complainant, the opposite party No.1 claimed that the Surveyor had made an estimate of repair of damages and accordingly an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- has been credited to the loan account by the Insurance Company.
8. Ext-5 is the Statement of loan accounts.As per Ext-5, an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- has been deposited in the loan account on 05-12-16. Thus it is found crystal clear that before being conducted survey the Insurance Company was sure that the estimate of repair would come at Rs.1,20,000/-. In document “X” the Surveyor had not given any indication as to the basis of assessment.
9. Be that as it may, under no circumstances, claim of the opposite party that the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- credited on the basis of Survey Report, can be accepted. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that submission of Mr. Singh is not sustainable at all and the judgment of the Apex Court is not relevant to the case in hand. For the above reasons, payment of an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- cannot be considered as payment made on the basis of Report/estimate made by the Surveyor. Such payment was made, as is apparent on the face of record, on surmise without giving any opportunity to the Complainiant to represent his case.
10. The entire facts and circumstances discussed above makes it very clear that the opposite party Insurance Company has least regard to its consumer,else it could have responded the Complainant on receipt of advocate’s notice on 31-12-2016. The Complainant being a consumer has every right to know the fate of the claim lodged. Again, the conduct of the opposite party No.1 also demonstrates its lack-a-daisical attitude towards the Forum.
11. Having regard to the entire facts we have no option but to decide the Point No.(i) in favour of the Complainant.Accordingly Point No.(i) is decided in the affirmative.
12.Point No.(ii): Complainant in his complaint prays for-
- Deposit the balance amount of the estimated value fixed by the opposite party No.1 of the damaged vehicle Rs.2,91,247/-(Rs.4,11,247 – Rs.1,20,000/-).
- Pay interest on the amount of Rs.2,91,247/- @9% per annum since 05-12-2016 till its realization.
- Award compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh) only.
- Cost of the case Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand)only
- Any other relief/reliefs the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper.
13. Complainant in prayer No.(i) above calculated the estimated value of damage at Rs.4,11,247/- on the basis of IDV that appeared in the Insurance Policy.Evidently, no material is available before us which can suggest that the vehicle got damaged totally and/or not in repairable condition.As per Ext-7,the Motor Vehicle Inspector found the following damages-
a)Complete front wind shield glass broken.
b)Complete Dash board damaged
c)Complete water pump assy, damaged
d)Complete rear back glass,left/right door glass,door machine sealing damaged.
e)Complete body damaged.
f)Complete left & right Mudguard damaged
g)Complete tie rod end assy damaged
h) Complete left side dala/body floor damaged.
i)Complete right/left door with bet/back glass rubber & front seat damaged.
Complete radiator, belt damaged.
j)ETC
14. The accident took place as a result of brake failure.The evidence of the Complainant shows that he has kept the vehicle in a garage. He nowhere has, however, stated how he had brought the vehicle from the accident site which is in the State of Arunachal Pradesh to the garage. Furthermore, the Complainant failed to furnish estimate of repair from the garage where the vehicle has been kept or from any authorized dealer or service provider. Without any document, we are not in a position to hold that the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- paid by the Insurance Company is not sufficient to make the vehicle roadworthy and/or the Complainant is entitled to the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle.In the result, Complainant is not entitled to the prayer No.(i) and (ii) of the complaint.However, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case discussed in foregoing Point No.(i) and decision thereof, we are of the opinion that the Complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost of litigation as prayed for. The Point is decided accordingly.
15. The opposite party Insurance Company may be directed to pay the compensation and cost within 30 days of receipt of copy of judgment and order. Let a copy of judgment be sent to the opposite party Insurance Company.Failing to comply with the direction shall entail the Complainant to realize interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint till full and final realization.
O R D E R
Consequently the complaint stands partly allowed. Opposite party No.1 is directed to pay to the Complainant the amount of Rs.1,20,000/-(Rupees One Lakh twenty thousand)only as prayed for being the amount of compensation and cost of litigation within 30(Thirty)days of receipt of copy of the judgment and order.Failing which the complainant shall be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint till full and final realization.
Given under our hands and seal of this Forum this 24th day of May, 2018.
Dictated and corrected by: Pronounced and delivered
( A.Devee)
President (A. DEVEE)
District Consumer D.R Forum,Sonitpur President
Tezpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sonitpur,Tezpur
I agree:- (SMT.S.BORA)
Member
