This appeal is preferred against the Final Order delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Dakshin Dinajpur dated 17.12.2020 in CC No 9 of 2016. The case in nutshell is that the respondent Aju Mandal registered a Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of C.P Act, 1986 for claiming an amount of Rs. 4,07,912/- for repairing charges of her Tractor along with compensation and litigation cost. The respondent Aju Mandal’s case is that he purchased the said tractor from the authorized dealer of M/S Mahindra & Mahindra of Malda and also purchased an accidental risk insurance policy on 20.04.2015 from the Appellant/Insurance Company on 20.04.2015 by paying annual subscription of one year and the covered value of the policy was fixed at Rs. 4,50,000/-. The said tractor met with an accident on 27.06.2015 at 4 AM within Gangarampur PS Jurisdiction and got badly damaged. The Complainant registered a FIR on 30.06.2015 and the Gangarampur PS started the case on 04.07.2015 and seized the vehicle along with documents. Thereafter, the Complainant took an estimate from the Durga Machinery Math for estimation of repairing cost on 05.08.2015 as said Durga Machinery Math reported the estimation cost of Rs. 4,07,912/- on 05.08.2015 for repairment of the damaged tractor. On the basis of such estimation the Complainant/Respondent lodged a claim for realization of the said repair cost of the tractor which was turned down on repudiation on the part of the Insurance Company. So, he registered a Consumer Complaint. The said Consumer Complaint was placed for admission and on admission stage it was rejected on the ground that the driver had no valid license at the time of accident. The Complainant/Respondent then preferred an appeal against the said order of Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Dakshin Dinajpur before the Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, West Bengal at Calcutta. The Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission after hearing the appeal was pleased to observe that the driver license was issued by the licensing authority on 28.06.2010 and it was valid up to 27.06.2016 while the accident was occurred on 27.06.2015. Hon’ble State Commission was pleased to set aside the order of the Ld. Forum and passed a direction upon the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Dakshin Dinajpur to dispose of the Consumer Complaint on merit after issuing proper notice to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties Cholamandalam M/S General Insurance Company Ltd. had contested the case by submitting the W.V contended inter-alia that the Insurance Company was not duly informed about the alleged accident immediately after this occurrence and the driver had no valid license at that point of time and for that reason the Insurance Company has repudiated the claim. Ld. Forum on the basis of pleadings of both parties and after recording evidences came into conclusion that the claim was raised after six months from the date of incident and for that reason Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim and for that reason the case was dismissed on merit. Being aggrieved with this order the Respondent/Complainant preferred an appeal before this Bench Bearing FA No A/33 of 2018. This Commission after hearing both sides came to a finding that the alleged accident was held on 27.06.2015 while the Complainant lodged the claim before the Insurance Company within 48 hours that was on 29.06.2015. And it was already detected that the driver had valid license at the time of incident and for that reason the order of Ld. Forum dated 14.06.2018 in CC No 9 of 2016 was set aside and Ld. Forum was directed to re-hear the case and to determine the actual estimation of damage sustained by the Complainant arising out of the said accident and have to consult with the loss of estimation furnished by the Complainant/Respondent and also to the estimation of any Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company and thereafter should have to determine the compensation amount and other reliefs as prayed for. After, getting back the mandate on remand Ld. Forum has arranged for rehearing the case and both parties were directed to furnish the relevant documents in support of their cases while the Respondent/Complainant furnished before the Ld. Forum the estimation of repairing cost prepared by one DMMART Automotive Pvt. Ltd. formally known as Durga Machinery Math. While, in spite of getting opportunity the Insurance Company could not produce any scrap of document before the Ld. Forum about the actual cost of estimation for repairment of the damaged tractor. So, the Ld. Forum had to rely upon the estimation prepared by DMMART Automotive Pvt. Ltd. and computed the compensation for repairing charge as awarded in favour of the Complainant/Respondent to the tune of Rs. 4,07,912/- along with interest at the rate of 8% Per-annum from 27.06.2015 and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. Being aggrieved with the said order this appeal follows on the part of the O.P/Appellant, Cholamandalam M/S General Insurance Company against the order of the Ld. Forum on the ground that the regional team of O.P Company did not receive any notice from the Ld. Forum for which the concerned Ld. Lawyer could not be informed about the hearing of the case and moreover since the cause list was not updated due to COVID pandemic and long lockdown as such the concerned lawyer could not appear before the Ld. Forum on the date of argument and furnish the relevant documents that is Surveyor’s Report. The further case of the appellant is that one IRDA License Surveyor was appointed in the alleged accident by the Insurance Company to asses the net liability of the insurer in connection with this accident and the Surveyor assessed the net liability of the insurer at the tune of Rs. 49,735/-. But Ld. Lawyer of the company due to pandemic period could not produce the said document before the Ld. Forum and as such the estimation of loss was assessed by the Ld. Forum only on the basis of one side document and for that reason this Final Order of Ld. Forum was passed against the spirit and principle of natural justice. The further case of the appellant is that on the date of final hearing of the case Ld. Advocate appointed by the Insurance Company could not appear before the Ld. Forum due to pandemic situation and for that reason the Judgement and Final Order dated 17.12.2020 should be set aside and a fresh hearing should be provided so that the Insurance Company could ventilate their case in a proper manner before the Ld. Forum to upheld the principle of natural justice. The appeal was registered in due course and the respondent was given the notice at his address who has contested the appeal through the Ld. Advocate. The hearing of the case of the appellant was conducted through the Ld. Advocate Mr. J.P. Pawa appointed by the appellant.  Ld. Advocate Mr. Rathin Sarkar has advanced the argument and hearing on behalf of the respondent.

Decision with reasons

The admitted position is that the tractor of the Complainant/Respondent has met with a road traffic accident on 27.06.2015 at about 4 AM and the FIR was registered after seven days of the said accident before the Police Station. The Insurance Company has repudiated the claim of the Complainant on the ground that after lapse of seven days since the date of accident the claim was registered before the Insurance Company and the intimation of accident also was held after lapse of seven days. In earlier occasion the Insurance Company took a plea that the driver had no valid license and for that reason Ld. Forum has dismissed the said Consumer Complaint. Against the said order an appeal was preferred before the Hon’ble State Commission of Calcutta Bench. Hon’ble State Commission of Calcutta Bench observed that the driver had valid license at the time of accident and for that reason Ld. Forum was directed to re-hear the case afresh. After, obtaining the Written Version from the O.P/Insurance Company the O.P/Insurance Company contested the said Consumer dispute case and thereafter it was adjudicated by the Ld. Forum that the Complainant raised the claim after 6 months from the date of accident and for that reason the Consumer Complaint was dismissed on merit. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred before this Bench where it was detected that no inordinate delay was there on the part of the Complainant/Respondent and for that reason the order of dismissal of the Ld. Forum was set aside and Ld. Forum was directed to re-hear the case to compute the actual cost of repairment of the damaged vehicle and to consider the reliefs has prayed for by the Complainant/Respondent. Ld. Forum again re-hear the case and on the basis of the report of DMMART Automotive Pvt. Ltd. formally known as Durga Machinery Math has come into conclusion that the cost of repairment of the damage of the vehicle was assessed Rs. 4,07,912/-. Now, the question is the one side reliance upon the report of the computation of damage on the part of a private agency DMMART Automotive Pvt. Ltd is appreciable or not. While, the Insurance Company could not furnish the Surveyor’s Report before the Ld. Forum and as such the Ld. Forum could not get an ample opportunity to assess the actual cost in a proper manner. The Ld. Lawyer of the Insurance Company mentions that due to COVID pandemic the conducting Lawyer of the Insurance Company could not reach before the Ld. Forum to take participation in the hearing and also has failed to produce the copy of Surveyor’s Report and for that reason the verdict of the Ld. Forum was one sided and the Insurance Company could not get ample opportunity to contest the case and practically it was an Ex-parte order and to upheld the principle of natural justice the case again should be remanded back to the Ld. Forum for re-hearing. Ld. Advocate of the respondent Mr. R. Sarkar mentions that the case is very old one and the Insurance Company with taking lame excuses one by one causing serious harassment to a policy holder and now in this appeal stage the Commission should consider the case on its merit and determine the dispute in prudent manner. He further argued that the Ld. Forum in the Final Order dated 17.12.2020 has appreciated the case in a proper manner and the order was deemed just, reasonable and any irregularities could be detected in the said Final Order and for that reason the instant appeal should be dismissed. Ld. Advocate of the respondent in support of his contention raised a point that the Ld. Forum was directed to adjudicate the dispute within two months and the COVID situation should not be the reason to entertain the appeal on the ground that the Insurance Company could not get opportunity to take participation in the hearing process. The Insurance Company in this appeal case has submitted Annexure-3 that is Assessment Report of one Kaustuv Basu the Surveyor cum Loss Assessor but this document could not be produced on the part of the Insurance Company before the Ld. Forum.

It is also fact that due to COVID situation the normal work of different offices was stopped for a formidable period and as a result some litigants might have suffered a lot for not getting proper service of the Lawyers appointed by them to take participation in the hearing before the adjudication authority in many matters. So, in our view, in order to achieve a proper and natural justice the Insurance Company should get an opportunity afresh to re-hear the case again with the assessment report they have furnished here shall have to be furnished before the Ld. Forum and Ld. Forum after going through the documents of the both sides regarding cost of requirement of the damaged vehicle shall deliver the final verdict. So, the instant appeal has got some merit to succeed.

Hence, it’s ordered

That the appeal be and the same is allowed on contest without cost. The Final Order of ld. D.C.D.R.F., Dakshin Dinajpur dated 17.12.2020 in CC No 9 of 2016 is hereby set aside.

of Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Dakshin Dinajpur is hereby requested to re-hear the case afresh on the point of assessment of repairing cost of the damaged vehicle and consider the other relieves on the basis of documents already furnished by the parties to the case particularly the assessment report submitted by the Complainant that is the report of M/S DMMARD Automotive Pvt. Ltd. formally Durga Machinery Math dated 05.08.2015 and the surveyor report prepared by the surveyor cum loss assessor Kaustuv Basu appointed by the appellant/Insurance Company. And the said hearing should be completed as early as possible by giving sufficient opportunity to both parties to participate in the hearing and shall deliver the final verdict.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and the order be communicated to the of Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Dakshin Dinajpur for taking necessary action.