West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/15/2013

Sri Chinmoy Roy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jun 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                                                                       

 Complaint case No.  15/2013                                                         Date of disposal: 25/06/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.                                                                  

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.     

  

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. A. K. Roy, Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. M. K. Chowdhury, Advocate.                                   

          

 1) Sri Chinmoy Roy, (2) Sri Mrinmoy Roy both sons of Sri Nilratan Roy of Vill, P.O. & P.S.-Lalgarh, Dist-Paschim Medinipur……………Complainants.

                                                              Vs.

1. The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office at Midnapore, P.S.Kotwali, Dist Paschim Medinipur,
2. The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office at Durgachak Super Market, Dist Purba Medinipur …………………… ……………Ops.

          Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member.

The case of the Complainant in a nutshell is that the Complainant purchased a Bajaj Tractor bearing Regd. No. W.B.-33/8768 on 07/03/2003 from Mahabir Auto Distributor at Malancha Road, Kharagpur taking loan from Vidyasagar Central Co. Op. Bank Ltd., lalgrah of 3,62,035/- Bank financed by 2,89,600/- and subsequently the Complainant has repaid the loan amounts. The said tractor used to run Dherua to Murar ( via Gahami, Lalgarh )etc.

That on 02/02/2009 the vehicle of Complainants was going to Murar loaded with passengers and when it reached at Vill. Khangangal Temattani the said vehicle was attacked by some miscreants. In this situation the driver and the passengers of the said vehicle were compelled to leave the vehicle and fled away with fear from the place of incident and the vehicle was totally damaged by fire by the miscreants. The police of the Lalgrah P.S. started a Lalgrah P.S. Case no. 7/2009 dated 03/02/2009. Finally the Lalgrah police submitted the final report.

The vehicle of the Complainants was insured under Op. The original insurance company Ltd. Midnapore. The insurance policy no. of the vehicle is 2008-7495 which is valid from 7/3/2008 to 06/03/2009.

Contd……P/2

 

                                                                                                   - ( 2 ) -

The Complainants lodged a G.D. at Lalgarh P.S. being G,D. no.7109 dated 03/02/2009 regarding the incident.

The Complainant subsequently informed the incident to the Op and to the Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company in writing.

The Op. send his photograph Sri Sandip Shaw to the place of incident and took photo of damaged vehicle.

The Op. assured the complainant that they will settle the matter. On 20/11/2011 the complainants again requested to settle the claim by writing. But the Op. did not pay any heed to the request of the complainants.

The complainants are unemployed. They purchased the vehicle for the purpose of earning their livelihood. The complainants have suffered a great financial loss due to the incident. The Op. is bound to pay the compensation as the vehicle was insured with the Op-Oriental Insurance otherwise the act of the Op. is deficiency in service.

Thus the complainant has come before the Ld. Forum with the allegation of deficiency of service against Ops.

Ops. contested the case by filing written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable in law in the present from and the present case is barred by limitation.

In the written objection the Op state that the complainant could not show the damaged vehicle to the investigator even at the alleged spot. The Op. totally denied the incident. As such question of deficiency of service from the side of the Op. did not arise. The Ops. also state that in absence of vehicle there can not he any assessment so there can not be any payment of compensation for a non existed vehicle and as such the claim was repudiated Ops. also state that claim make by the complainant were not tenable and prayed for rejection of the case.

Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed :

1. Whether the case is maintainable in the present form.
2. Whether the Op is deficiency in service within the meaning of Sec.2(1) (g) read with Sec.2 (1)  (  ) of the C.P. Act 1986.
3. Whether other relief’s the complainant is entitled to.                                              

                                           Decisions with reasons :

Issues 1 to 3 :

         All the decisions with reasons are taken up litigation for decisions. The Ld. Lawyer fot the complainant argued that the case is maintainable. On 08/09/2012 the complainant submitted the estimate report as per advice of the Op.no.1 and the Op. no.1 assured to the complainant that the Ops. shall settle the matter. But subsequently the Ops. alleged that beyond the period of limitation claim application was filed.

Contd……P/3

                                                                     

- ( 3 ) -

Ops. alleged that as per the order passed in complainant case No. 137/2011 the investigator of this company went to the spot for inspection of the alleged damaged vehicle but the same could not be trace lout. On 07/09/2012 at the request of complainant/owner the Garage owner prepared a estimate without seeing the vehicle.

On 09/02/2009 the complainant informed the Ops. Branch Manager the Insurance Co. Ltd. and RTA Paschim Medinipur regarding the incident. Thereafter the Ops. sent there photographs who took the photo of damaged vehicle.

The ld. Lawyers for the Ops. did not deny the photographs and photo of damage vehicle and there is no whisper that the photo was taken on behalf of the Ops. Here it is assumed that the photo was taken as there is no deni on this point. But the Ops. did not settle the claim. As the Op failed to settle the matters it is deficiency in service U/s-2(1)(g) read with Sec-(291) of the Consumer Protection Act.

 Op. in his written objection mentioned that the registration of the vehicle was more than 5 years back and at the time of incident the vehicle was 5 years old. Ld lawyers for the Op also mentioned that as per terms and conditions of the policy there will be deduction of the 40% as per depreciation over the insured declared value being 1,70,000/-.

Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances it is held and decided that the Op. should be liable for deficiency of service and there by the complainant is merited for the remedy in terms of the prayer made in the petition of complainant.      

 Hence,

            Ordered,

                              that the case succeeds on contest against the Ops.

            Op. is directed to pay 1,00,000/- (One lakh )only to the complainant.

            Op. is also directed to pay 50,000/- (Fifty thousand) only as compensation due to deficiency of service and loss of income.

             The award shall be paid by the Op. within 30 days from this date otherwise the total amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9 percent from the filing of this case till recovery of the entire amount.

Contesting parties be supplied with the copy of the Judgement free of cost. 

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         Member                                             Member                                                  President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                          Paschim Medinipur.