DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
Consumer Complaint No 119 of 2015
Date of filing: 15.5.2015 Date of disposal: 05.01.2016
Complainant: M/s. Paikara Rudrasanda S.K.U.S. Ltd., a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Represented through its Secretary Atanu Sarkar, having its office at Vill: Paikara, P.O. Chotosarsa, P.S. Pandua, District: Hooghly, PIN – 712 147.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., represented through its Branch Manager, having its branch office at: M.V. Apartment, 3rd Floor, 36 G.T.Road, above IDBI Bank, Parbirhata, PO: Sripally, Burdwan, PIN – 713 103.
Present: Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the Opposite Party: None.
J U D G E M E N T
This is a complaint u/S. 12of the C.P. Act, 1986 for non-settlement of claim with the prayer for an award directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 1,31,000=00 for repairing the vehicle, Rs. 7,000=00 as towing cost for the accident met ambulance, to pay Rs. 50,000=00 as compensation and to pay Rs. 25,000=00 as litigation cost.
The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant owned/purchased an EECO Ambulance BS4 from Maruti Udyog Ltd. being chassis no. MA3ERLF1S00277355 JC. Thereafter the complainant insured the vehicle from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., i.e. the OP, the policy being No. OG-14-2432-1811-00000138 was valid from 29.01.2014 to 28.01.2015. Then the vehicle was registered and got the number of the vehicle WB-15B9169.
On 26.4.2014, the vehicle met an accident on Belgharia Expressway. For that, a case was lodged to Dumdum P.S. being no. 347 dated 26.4.2014 and intimation was made to the OP to this effect. The OP deputed a Surveyor. The Surveyor visited the workshop and did his job. But no work order was issued in favour of the complainant.
After elapsing for two months, the complainant received an e-mail from the OP for repairing works. In that e-mail the OP admitted that he has received all the required copies which was duly submitted on 03.5.2014 and received by the OP in due time from the complainant essential for issuing the repairing works. Accordingly, the repairing work was done and the complainant incurred a sum of Rs. 1, 31,000=00 for repairing and a sum of Rs. 7,000=00 for towing cost of the vehicle.
The claim was repudiated on 24.9.2014 by giving a letter to the complainant on the ground of non-cooperation and non-submission of requisite documents. Non-cooperation arose due to alleged silence of three letters before 24.9.2014 sent by OP. But actually the complainant did not receive any letter, excepting the letter of repudiation on 24.9.2014. So question of non-cooperation does not arise. And regarding non-submission of mandatory/requisite documents the complainant adduced evidence a letter and an e-mail from the OP showing receipt of the required documents by the OP in time. The complainant challenged the ground of non-settlement of claim.
Hence, the case with the prayers as mentioned above.
Though the notice was duly served upon the OP, the OP did not contest the case by submitting any written version and appearing on the dates of hearing. Accordingly the case was heard ex parte against them.
Decision with reasons:-
After perusing all the documents carefully, it is observed by this Forum that the ground of repudiation by the OP, namely, non-cooperation and non-submission of mandatory documents is baseless, which is evident from the documents placed by the complainant. The OP could not place any receipt or track report of the three letters posted by them before the letter of repudiation. Even the OP did not challenge the said denial of receiving those letters by the complainants. So the question of non-cooperation by the complainant does not arise.
Regarding non-submission of essential documents, it is observed by this Forum that the complainant has submitted the letter of receipt of requisite documents by the OP and also an e-mail which also tells the due receipt by the OP. So the ground of repudiation for non-submission of documents is also baseless. So the case succeeds.
Fees paid is correct.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is allowed ex parte with cost against the OP. That the complainant do get an award directing the OP to pay Rs. 1, 38,000=00 as repairing cost and towing cost, to pay Rs. 10,000=00 as compensation for harassment and mental agony and to pay Rs. 3,000=00 as litigation cost to the complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this final order/judgment failing which the awarded amount of Rs. 1,38,000=00 will carry interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of this case up to the date of realization and the complainant will be at liberty to execute this award in accordance with law.
Let plain copies of this final order/judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
