West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/123/2016

Sk. Maizuddin - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Jun 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Sagarika Sarkar, Member. 

and 

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member.

 

Complaint Case No.123/2016

 

             Sk. Maizuddin, S/o Sk. Mainuddin, vill. Jagannathpur, P.O. Bharatpur,

           P.S. Debra, District - Paschim Medinipur. …………Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

1. The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Kharagpur Branch, at Atwal Estate, P.O. & P.S. Kharagpur, District Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721305,
2. The Regional Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Kolkata Regional Office, Eco-Space, 3^rd floor, Block -‘B’, Plot no.11/A/11 (Old AA-11/BLR-2, IT New Town – Rajarhat, Kolkata-700156,
3. The Branch Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service, At Inda, P.O. & P.S. Kharagpur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur…………..Opp. Parties.

                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr. Asim Kumar Dutta, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Pinaki Sengupta, Adovcate,

                                                  : Mr. Subrata Bikash Das, Advocate,

                                                 

 

Decided on: -21/06/2017

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – This is the case u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, filed by the complainant, Sk. Maizuddin against the O.Ps.- The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Kharagpur Branch, Regional Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Kolkata Regional Office and the Branch Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service, at Inda, P.O. & P.S. Kharagpur alleging deficiency in service on the part of the  O.P.- Insurance Company.

                                                                                                                                                                        Contd……………………P/2

 

                                                                                                         ( 2 )

                           Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant insured his vehicle being no.WB-34-AP/6414 with the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 vide insurance policy no.OG-16-2410-1801-00003602 covering for the period from 26.03.2016 to 25.03.2017 against payment of premium of Rs.4,576/- in the head of ‘Own Damage’ claim.  On the night of 24.05.2016, the said vehicle of the complainant met with a road traffic accident at Deberpukur and thereafter the complainant intimated the  O.P.-Insurance Company regarding such occurrence with a prayer for getting own damage claim  and the said intimation was registered as claim no.oc-17-2410-1801-00004445.  After receiving the said intimation of claim, one surveyor was sent by the O.P.-Insurance Company for inspection of the vehicle and after long enquiry, the surveyor falsely intimated the complainant vide letter dated 01.08.2016 that at the time of accident, one Sk. Habibur Ora   was driving the vehicle instead of the driver Sk. Kamrul Islam and also requested the complainant to provide the driving license of said Sk. Habibur Ora.  It is stated that after the accident, the vehicle was sent to authorized service centre of Bhandari Automobiles, who after inspection of the vehicle, gave estimate of repairing cost of Rs.2,70,909.57/-.  The said estimate was  duly deposited with the O.P.-Insurance Company along with other relevant documents as asked by the O.P.-Insurance Company.  The complainant purchased the said vehicle with financial assistance of O.P. no.3 and due to such accident  the complainant did not enjoy the use of the vehicle. In spite of that, he has been compelled to repay the loan to the O.P. no.3.  It is alleged that the O.P.-Insurance Company avoided settlement of the claim with absurd plea that one Sk.Habibur Ora was driving the vehicle at the relevant time, although the said vehicle was being driving by one Sk.Kamrul Islam.  It is therefore alleged that with a view to reject or repudiate the genuine claim of the complainant  the O.P.-Insurance Company is delaying  settlement of the claim which amounts to gross deficiency in service from their side.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the O.P.-Insurance Company to pay the estimated amount of Rs.2,70,909.57/- for repairing cost together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of submission of the claim, an award of Rs.50,000/- towards rent of garage, compensation of Rs.50,000/- and  litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-

                         The opposite party nos.1&2, the Insurance Company, have contested this case by filling a joint written objection.

                         Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the O.P.-Insurance Company that on being intimated regarding the accidental damaged of the vehicle, the O.P.-Insurance Company made a spot survey through it’s surveyor and after preliminary survey done by the surveyor cum loss assessor, he assessed the loss and noted the damage and took necessary photographs.  After such survey, the surveyor submitted his preliminary survey report assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.2,00,426.33/- on repair basis.  It is submitted by the O.P that the

                                                                                                                                                                       Contd……………………P/3

 

                                                                                                       ( 3 )

 liability will not be more than the loss assessed by the surveyor if the claim is admissible as per terms and conditions of the policy.  It is further contended by the O.P.-Insurance Company that from the investigation report, it is disclosed that the insurer admitted that  Sk. Habibur Ora, the son of the complainant, was driving the said vehicle at the relevant time of accident although he had no driving license but the complainant has implanted a driver named Sk. Kamrul Inslam for getting compensation.  As the complainant suppressed the fact about implantation of driver Sk. Kamrul Inslam, so there is no deficiency in service from the said of O.P. and as such the petition of complaint is liable to be rejected.

                        O.P. no.3 has contested this case by filing a written objection.  It is stated by the O.P. no.3 that as per loan agreement, the complainant is under obligation to repay the loan but the complainant has committed breach of terms of loan agreement by non- paying the dues of the loan.  O.P. no.3 further submits that they are not going to stand in the way of getting any relief which the complainant is entitled but the O.P. no.3 prays that after making payment of the dues of the O.P. no.3,  the rest amount which is likely to be awarded may be given to the complainant and order may be accordingly  passed.

                        To prove his case, the complainant has examined himself as PW-1 by tendering his written examination-in-chief and during his evidence, eight documents have been marked as Exhibit 1 to 8 for identification.

                        Complainant has also examined another witness namely Kuntal Pahari as PW-2 and during his evidence an estimate has been marked as Exhibit-9. 

                       On the other hand, none of the O.Ps adduced any evidence.

                                                                 Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?
2. Is the complainant  a ‘consumer’ of the O.P. nos.1 & 2?
3. Is there any deficiency in service  on the part of the O.P.-Insurance Company?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?    

                   

Decision with reasons

For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

   Admittedly, the complainant got his vehicle registered with the O.P.-Insurance Company under a policy vide no. OG-16-2410-1801-00003602 covering for the period from 26.03.2016 to 25.03.2017.  It is not denied and disputed that the said vehicle being no. WB-34AP/6414 of the complainant met with an accident on the  night of 24.05.2016 and after such accident, the

                                                                                                                                                                      Contd……………………P/4

     

                                                                                                               ( 4 )

complainant lodged claim before the O.P.-Insurance Company for payment repairing cost of the vehicle under that policy and his claim was also duly registered.  It is further admitted by both the parties that after such submission of claim,  O.P.-Insurance Company appointed a surveyor for inspection of the damaged vehicle and after inspection and enquiry, the said surveyor submitted a report thereby assessing the loss of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.2,00,426.33/-.  Now the dispute is that in the said report, the surveyor alleged that at the time of accident, the said vehicle was being driving by one Sk. Habibur Ora who had no valid license.  To substantiate their said claim, the O.P.-Insurance Company produced no iota of evidence to show and to prove that  one Sk. Habibur Ora was driving the vehicle at the relevant time of accident.  So on the pretext of such plea, the O.P.-Insurance Company cannot deny the settlement of the claim of the complainant.  Admittedly, the surveyor, so engaged by the O.P-Insurance Company, assessed the loss of repairing cost at Rs.2,00,426.33/-.   As against this, the complainant has submitted an estimate (Exhibit-9) thereby showing that the repairing cost would be Rs.2,70,909.57/-.  Such estimate (exhibit-9) is mere an estimate and the complainant produced no scrap of paper to show and to prove that he incurred such amount of Rs.2,70,909.57/- for repairing his vehicle.  Therefore, the report of the registered surveyor, so appointed by the O.P.-Insurance Company, is to be accepted and the complainant would be entitled to get the said amount of Rs.2,00,426.33/- so assessed by the loss assessor cum surveyor of the O.P-Insurance Co.  Since the O.P.-Insurance Company has delayed settlement of the claim of insurance on the un-established plea of violation of terms and conditions,  so we are of the view that the O.P.-Insurance Company has committed deficiency in service in settling the claim for which the complainant will be entitled to get an award of compensation for such delay.

             All the points are accordingly decided in favour of the complainant.

             In the result, the complaint case stands succeed in part. 

                                     Hence, it is,

                                         Ordered,

                                     that the complaint case  no.123/2016 is allowed in part  on contest  against the O.P nos. 1&2 with cost and dismissed on contest against the O.P. No.3.  O.P. nos. 1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs.2,00,426.33/- towards repairing cost of the vehicle to the complainant and they are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.  All such payment must be made within one month from this date of order.   

               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

 Dictated & corrected by me

      Sd/-B. Pramanik.           Sd/- Sagarika Sarkar.       Sd/- Pulak Kumar Singha          Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

               President                          Member                           Member                             President

                                                                                                                                      District Forum

                                                                                                                                Paschim Medinipur