Order No. 40 dt. 25/05/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is the owner in respect of a vehicle being no.WB-04D/0629. The vehicle was insured with o.p. insurance company. The vehicle met with an accident on 26.7.08. The complainant informed the fact of accident to o.p. no.1 on the next date i.e. 27.7.08. Subsequently the vehicle was shifted to R.D. Motor, Rajarhat on 28.7.08. A surveyor was appointed for assessment of loss. During the process of repairing the complainant came to know that o.p. no.1 would not provide the cashless facility. The surveyor after assessment of the loss informed the o.p. no.3 and he also undertook to repair the job which were not caused by accident and furnished a separate bill of Rs.2,58,786/-. The o.p. no.1 failed to pay the repairing cost of Rs.1,33,454/-. Subsequently the complainant came to learn that the amount of Rs.1,33,454/- was paid by o.p. no.1 directly to o.p. no.3. Because of not releasing the vehicle by o.p. no.3 for non payment of the entire amount by the complainant, the complainant has suffered loss for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for payment of the sum of Rs.5 lakhs for the claim arising out of the policy i.e. Rs.2,58,786/- for the cost of repair and the balance amount of Rs.2,41,214/- for harassment.
The o.p. nos.1 and 2 contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that from the letter dt.24.12.09 issued by o.p. no.3 addressed to the complainant that cost of repairing of the damages of the vehicle was not only for accidental impact but also for normal deterioration. IRDA approved surveyor investigated the claim and assessed the loss of Rs.1,31,453.47. The additional work for Rs.94,572.23 was related with normal deterioration of the vehicle was not payable under the policy. The complainant executed the satisfaction cum discharge voucher with a request to release the payment in favour of the repairer o.p. no.3 which constituted the full and final discharge of liability of the insurer o.p. no.1. Accordingly the payment of Rs.1,31,454/- was released in favour of o.p. no.3. The said sum was received by o.p. no.3. Therefore the claim made by the complainant is a manufactured one and she will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
In spite of receipt of notice the o.p. no.3 did not contest the case by filing w/v and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against the o.p. no.3.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the vehicle was insured with insurance company.
- Whether the policy was valid at the time of accident.
- Whether the insurance company paid the claim of the repairer and amount was released.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant is the owner in respect of the vehicle being no. WB-04D/0629 and the vehicle was insured with o.p. no.1. While the vehicle was insured during that period on 26.7.08 the vehicle met with an accident for which the vehicle got damaged and the said fact was informed to insurance company. After repairing of the vehicle o.p. no.2 demanded the amount of Rs.3,33,744/- but o.p. no.1 released an amount of Rs.1,31,454/-. Since the balance amount was not made by o.p. no.1, as such the complainant had to file this case praying for compensation of Rs.6 lakhs including the unpaid balance amount.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. nos.1 and 2 argued that as per the terms of the policy the complainant while informed the o.p. no.1 an IRDA approved surveyor was appointed and after his appointment he examined the damaged the vehicle and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,31,453/-.47. The additional work which was required to be done for repairing of the said vehicle related to the normal deterioration of the vehicle which was not covered with the policy, therefore o.p. no.1 as per the direction of the complainant paid the said amount to o.p. no.3. There was no deficiency in service on the part of insurance company, thereby o.p. nos.1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle at the relevant point of time and the vehicle was insured with o.p. no.1 and the vehicle was covered within the period of the said policy. It is also an admitted fact that an accident took place while the policy was valid and immediately after the accident the complainant informed the said fact to o.p. no.1. After getting such information an IRDA approved surveyor was appointed and he assessed the loss in respect of the said vehicle to the tune of Rs.1,31,453.47. So far as the other deterioration of the vehicle in question was concerned the said deterioration was made in the said vehicle not with regard to the impact of the accident but it was the normal deterioration for which the surveyor assessed the amount of Rs.94,572.23. Since the complainant agreed with regard to the payment of the amount by o.p. no.1 to the tune of Rs.1,31,453.47 the said amount was paid by o.p. no.1 to o.p. no.3. In view of the said background of the case though the complainant claimed that no such communication was made by the complainant or any intimation was given to the complainant regarding the payment to be made by o.p. no.1 in favour of o.p. no.3, but it is an admitted fact that o.p. no.3 received the amount in respect of the damage relating to the said accident and on the basis of the assessment made by the surveyor o.p. no.1 paid the amount to o.p. no.3. Since the complainant failed to pay the balance amount for which the vehicle was not released. The complainant by making false allegation against o.p. no.1 wanted to have the entire cost of repairing of the vehicle including the deterioration of the said vehicle due to depreciation. Since there was no cogent reason whatsoever against o.p. no.1 regarding any deficiency in service was caused to the complainant, therefore we hold that the complainant will not be entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.161/2011 is dismissed on contest against the o.p. nos.1 and 2 and dismissed ex parte against the o.p. no.3 without cost.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
