BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM
(DISTRICT FORUM)
UNOKUTI TRIPURA : KAILASHAHAR
C A S E NO. C. C. 16/12
SMT. DIPTI RANI DEY,
W/o- SHRI NIKUNJA BEHARI DEY,
Village & P.O -GOKULNAGAR,
PS -KUMARGHAT,
UNAKOTI DISTRICT.
…......COMPLAINANT.
V E R S U S
1. The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
Agartala Divisional Office,
42, Akhaura Road, Agartala,
West Tripura,
PIN- 799001.
2. The Branch Manager,
Tata Motors Finance Limited,
87, HGB Road, Battala,
Opposite Madan Mohan Mandir,
P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,
District- West Tripura,
PIN- 799001.
….....OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
SHRI P. K. DUTTA
PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM
UNAKOTI DISTRICT::KAILASHAHAR
A N D
SMTI. S. DEB, MEMBER
SHRI P. SINHA, MEMBER
C O U N S E L
For the complainant : Mr. C. Bhattacharjee , Advocate
For the OPs : Sri S. Chakraborty, Advocate
ORIGINAL DATE OF INSTITUTION :18-11-2016
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON :13-02-2019
J U D G M E N T
This is a complaint preferred by the complainant Smt. Dipti Rani Dey, U/S 12(1) of the C.P. Act against the opposite parties praying for awarding a compensation of Rs. 99,000/- (Rupees ninety nine thousand) and also a litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) for deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
2. The case of the complainant,as narrated in the complaint petition is that, she was/is the owner of the motor vehicle bearing registration No. TR 02 F 0275 (TATA NANO) which she purchased by way of loan from private finance company, the OP No.2 and the said vehicle was insured with the OP No. 1 Vide Policy No. 55 27 00 311 46 16 00 27 132 for the period from 28-06-2014 to 27-06-2015. OP No.2 was a corporate agent of OP No.1. On 21-04-2015 at night the said vehicle was in the garage of the complainant and due to heavy storm and rain on that night one big branch of mango tree fell on the roof of the said garage, as a result of which the roof broke down and the said branch of tree fell down upon the said vehicle. Consequent to the said mishap the rear glass and light, roof, engine and rear body of said vehicle were badly damaged. After the said incident the complainant immediately informed to the opposite parties and requested them to arrange repairing of the said vehicle on the strength of said insurance policy. Thereafter the opposite parties visited the house of the complainant and verified the extent of damage of the vehicle, but did not take any step to repair the said vehicle. As such, the complainant communicated with the opposite parties vide letter dated 03-05-2015 and requested them to take action towards repairing of the vehicle within fifteen days. After receipt of the said letter the Divisional Manager of OP No.1 issued a letter dated 15-05-2015 to the complainant stating that they had not received any claim intimation from the complainant and requested her to submit claim intimation, copy of the policy and estimated loss from the repairer garage along with all vehicular documents, driving license, policy report, spot photographs for processing the claim. Accordingly, the complainant supplied all the required documents, copies along with estimated cost of Rs. 35,500/- (Rupees thirty five thousand five hundred only) from mechanical workshop, namely, “Purna Jyoti Fabrication Works” situated at Kumarghat along with letter dated 02-07-2015 and requested the OP No.1 to pay the said amount to the complainant or to repair the said damaged vehicle as early as possible. It is further contented in the petition that as the vehicle is on off road condition she has been suffering various problems such as conveyance of her son to school and monetary loss. Thereafter, the Surveyor and other officials of OP No.1 visited the house of the complainant and verified the said damaged vehicle and asked the complainant to bring the vehicle at the mechanical workshop, namely, “Purna Jyoti Fabrication Works” at Kumarghat on 13-08-2015 for the purpose of repairing in their presence and also told the complainant to repair her said damaged vehicle at her own cost first and thereafter to submit repairing bill and OP No.1 would repay the same. Accordingly, on 13-08-2015 the complainant brought her vehicle to the said mechanical shop with the help of another vehicle and repaired the said vehicle in presence of the Surveyor of OP No.1 incurring an amount of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) and paid the amount to the proprietor of the said mechanical shop on 15-08-2015 in presence of the surveyor and thereafter submitted the copy of repairing bill to the said surveyor of the OP No.1 on the same day. But surprisingly, OP No.1 issued a letter to the complainant on 25-08-2015 stating that they had not received any survey report of the vehicle covering under policy No. 55 27 00 311 46 16 00 27 132 and also stated that in spite of repeated request the complainant has not yet dismantled the above accident vehicle and also not co-operating with the surveyor for survey regarding extent of loss and placing such reason they cancelled the claim of the complainant treating the same as 'no claim'. It is also contented in the petition that the OP No.2 never communicated with the complainant in this regard although OP No.2 duly received the notice and therefore, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the acts of the opposite parties the complainant filed this complaint petition on the ground of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and claimed total amount of Rs.99,000/- (Rupees ninety nine thousand only) on different counts like repairing charge of the vehicle, cost for bringing the damaged vehicle to the workshop, mental pain and sufferings etc.
3. On receipt of the notice OP No. 2 appeared and submitted written statement denying the claim of the complainant and stated that as the complainant could not submit the required documents as asked for by the OP No.2 her claim was refuted by the OP No.1.
4. In response to the notice OP No. 1 appeared before this Forum and submitted written statement stating inter-alia that the complainant did not immediately inform the matter of accident and requested to repair the said damaged vehicle. It is also denied that the OP No.1 did not visit the house of the complainant and verified the damaged vehicle. It is, however, admitted that the complainant served a request letter on 03-05-2015 to repair her said damaged vehicle on the strength of said insurance policy. It is also admitted by the OP No.1 that the Divisional Manager of the OP No.1 issued a letter dated 15-05-2015 to the complainant stating that they have not received any claim intimation and also requested to submit claim intimation, policy copy, estimated cost of repair etc. along with all the vehicular documents, but denied that the complainant supplied all the mentioned documents along with estimated cost of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) from the mechanical workshop. OP No.1 also denied to tell the complainant to repair her damaged vehicle at her own cost first and also denied that complainant incurred repairing cost of 35,000/-(Rupees thirty five thousand only) and also did not supply any copy of bill. It is also contented in the WS by the OP No.1 that the accident took place on 21-04-2015, but the complainant did not inform immediately and only on 03-05-2015 the complainant informed about her claim and on 15-05-2015 the OP No.1 asked the complainant to submit the claim intimation along with other documents such as repairing estimate, policy report, spot photographs, vehicular documents etc. but the complainant did not take any step for collecting the said documents. However, the OP No.1 appointed surveyor, namely, Malayendra Ghosh Roy, to inspect and assess the loss after receiving photocopies of some documents. Accordingly, the surveyor inspected the vehicle on 11-07-2015 and requested to arrange for dismantling the vehicle for detailed inspection but the complainant told the surveyor to visit the workshop for inspection of the damaged vehicle. Accordingly, the surveyor visited the workshop for survey, but the complainant did not send the vehicle to the said repairing workshop and told that there was none to bring the vehicle to the workshop.
5. From the side of the complainant two witnesses have been examined. They are the complainant Smt. Dipti Rani Dey as PW 1 and another Sri Bijoy Krishna Datta as PW 2. The complainant PW 1 in her evidence stated the same thing as stated by her in her complaint petition and for the sake of brevity the evidence is not repeated. PW 2 Sri Bijoy Krishna Datta in his evidence stated that complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing no. TR 02 F 0275(Tata Nano) and on 21.04.2015 on account of a heavy storm and rain while the said vehicle of the complainant was in the garage in her home, a big branch of mango tree fell down on the roof of the garage, resulting which the garage broke down and the branch of the tree fell over the vehicle of the complainant and due to the said accident, the rear glass and light, roof, engine and rear body of said vehicle were badly damaged. It is further stated by PW 2 that on 13.08.2015 the complainant told him to bring her said damaged vehicle from her house to the mechanical workshop, namely, ''Purna Jyoti Fabrication Works'' situated at Kumarghat and accordingly, on the same date in presence of Surveyor and other officials of the OP No.1 he brought the said damaged vehicle to the said workshop by his vehicle bearing no. TR 02 B 3140 (Tata Vanger) according to instruction of said Surveyor and other officials of OP No.1 and for that complainant paid him Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only).
6. During her examination-in-chief the complainant exhibited the following documents:-
Copy of information to the OC, Fatikroy Outpost entered Vide G.D. No. 346, dated 22.04.2015 in one sheet:- Exhibit 1.
Certified copy of information supplied by OC, Fatikroy Outpost in one sheet:- Exhibit 2.
Letter dated 03.05.2015 addressed to the Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Tata Motors Finance Limited by the petitioner in two sheets:- Exhibit 3/1 and Exhibit 3/2.
Letter dated 12.07.2015 addressed to the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited by the complainant in two sheets:- Exhibit 4/1 and Exhibit 4/2.
Letter dated 15.05.2015 issued by the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited addressed to the complainant in one sheet:- Exhibit 5.
Letter dated 25.08.2015 issued by Divisional Manager addressed to the petitioner in one sheet marked Exhibit 6.
Courier Service Receipts in six sheets:- Exhibit 7/1 to Exhibit 7/6.
Cash Memo/bill issued by 'Purna Jyoti Fabrication Works' in two sheets:- Exhibit 8/1 and Exhibit 8/2.
Insurance Policy in the name of the petitioner issued by OP No.1 in one sheet marked Exhibit 9.
A positive photographs of damaged vehicle marked Exhibit 10.
During cross examination by the OP complainant stated that on 21.04.2015 she was in her house. On the next day of the incident she gave information to the insurance company, but it is not mentioned in her claim petition. She admitted that Surveyor visited her house and asked him to hand over the documents and she also handed over the documents to the Surveyor. She denied that she did not incur expenditure of Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) for carrying the damaged vehicle and that Bijoy Krishna Datta did not shift her vehicle with the help of his vehicle.
During cross examination PW 2 denied that the petitioner did not request him to shift her vehicle by his vehicle and also denied that for the lifting purpose the petitioner did not give him Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only).
7. The only point necessary for adjudication of the case in hand is whether there is any deficiency on the part of the OP No.1 by not paying the assessed amount to the complainant on account of damage of her vehicle?
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION
8. From the complaint petition and evidence of the complainant and her witness it is revealed that the vehicle of the complainant bearing no. TR 02 F 0275 got damaged by an accident on 21.04.2015 when on that date due to heavy storm and rain one big branch of mango tree fell over the vehicle breaking down the garage. From Exhibit 1, it is found that the complainant made a G.D. Entry with the OC, Fatikroy Outpost regarding accident in the manner and damage of her vehicle. From Exhibit 2, a certificate issued by OC, Fatikroy Outpost, it is revealed that on 21.04.2015 night a branch of a tree fell on the vehicle bearing no. TR 02 F 0275 and as a result, the vehicle got damaged severely. Thus, it is proved that on 21.04.2015 the vehicle of the complainant got damaged following an accident when a branch of a tree fell on it while the vehicle was in a garage. From Exhibit 3/1, letter dated 03.05.2015 issued by the complainant addressed to the OP Nos. 1 and 2, it is found that the complainant Smt. Dipti Rani Dey informed both the opposite parties regarding the accident and the consequent damage of the vehicle. On perusal of Exhibit 4/1, a letter dated 02.07.2015 issued by the complainant to the Divisional Manager of the OP No.1, it is found that as per instruction of the OP No.1 Vide Letter dated 15.05.2015 (Exhibit 5) she submitted a xerox copy of insurance policy, registration certificate, tax token, photographs of the said damaged vehicle, driving licence of the driver Sri Nanda Gopal Das, Copy of G.D. Entry and estimated cost of Rs. 35,500/- (Rupees thirty five thousand five hundred only) for repairing of her damaged vehicle from mechanical workshop, namely, 'Purna Jyoti Fabrication Works', Kumarghat and requested to pay her the amount or repair her said damaged vehicle. From Exhibit 6, a letter issued by the Divisional Manager of the OP No.1 addressed to the complainant, it is found that they acknowledged the receipt of the report of the Survey Commissioner regarding damaged claim under Policy No. 55270031146160027132 owned by the complainant, but it is stated that the complainant did not dismantle the vehicle involved in the accident though Surveyor repeatedly requested her to do so and also that the complainant did not co-operate with the Surveyor for survey regarding extent of loss and as such, her claim was cancelled and treated as 'no claim'. From the side of the OP No.1, copy of independent survey report, submitted by the Surveyor, Sri Malendra Ghosh Roy, dated 16.08.2015, has been submitted Vide Firisti dated 25.01.2019, on perusal of which it is found that the Surveyor assessed the loss and repairing cost of the vehicle of the complainant to the extent of Rs. 11,776/- (Rupees eleven thousand seven hundred seventy six). Though, the OP No.1 stated that the complainant did not co-operate with the OP No. 1 and Surveyor, but on perusal of the documents available with the record, it is rather apparent that the complainant complied with the instruction of the OP No.1 regarding assessment of the loss by the Surveyor and that is why the Surveyor submitted his assessment report of damage and thus, it is found that the OP No.1 quite arbitrarily treated the claim of the complainant as 'no claim'. From the copy of insurance (Exhibit 9), it is found that the vehicle of the complainant bearing no. TR 02 F 0275 was insured with the OP No.1 Vide Policy No. 55270031146160027132 which was valid from 28.06.2014 to midnight of 27.06.2015. The accident took place on 21.04.2015 and as such, it is found that on the date of accident the vehicle of the complainant was under coverage of insurance policy issued by the OP No.1 and on the date of accident the owner was having valid registration certificate. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to compensation for damage of her vehicle due to accident, but by not giving compensation the OP No.1 has rendered deficiency of service. As per report of the Surveyor the loss of the vehicle due to accident is Rs.11,776/- (Rupees eleven thousand seven hundred seventy six only) and the complainant is entitled to receive this amount as loss of her vehicle. Complainant though claimed pulling charge of the vehicle to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and other ancillary cost like fare/rent of reserve car for conveyance purpose of his son to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only), but she could not prove her such claim by way of any congent evidence and as such, she is not entitled to get any amount under the aforesaid two aspects. The opposite parties did not compensate the complainant for damage of the vehicle and for that the complainant suffered a lot and as such, for pain and sufferings this Forum awards a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). Therefore, the complainant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 21,776/- (Rupees twenty one thousand seven hundred seventy six only) and OP No.1, the Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Agartala Divisional Office is to pay the said amount of compensation to the complainant.
The point is decided accordingly.
ORDER
10. In the result, it is ordered that the complainant is entitled to Rs. 21,776/- (Rupees twenty one thousand seven hundred seventy six only) along with 7% interest from 18.11.2016, the date of institution of the case and the OP No.1, the Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Agartala Divisional Office shall pay the said amount of compensation with interest to the complainant within two months from today, failing which the OP No.1 has to bear penal interest @ 9% till the date of payment.
11. With this observation, the complaint filed by the complainant stands disposed of on contest.
12. Furnish copy of this judgment to the complainant and O.P No.1 free of cost through their respective learned counsels.
ANNOUNCED
(P. K. DUTTA)
PRESIDENT
(S. DEB) (P. SINHA)
MEMBER MEMBER
