Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant: Pradip Banerjee
For OP/OPs : Raj Kumar Mandal
(2)
Date of filing of the case :28.06.2016
Date of Disposal of the case :30.12.2022
Final Order / Judgment dtd.30.12.2022
Complainant Sashanka Shekhar Biswas filed the present complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and prayed for award amounting to Rs.1,31,785.00 (Rupees One lakh thirty one thousand seven hundred eighty five), and compensation amounting to Rs.2,00,000.00(Rupees Two lakh) and cost of the case.
It is the allegation of the complainant that he had purchased Insurance Policy valid from 20.09.2015 12:00:01 to 19.09.2016 11:59:59 in respect of vehicle no.WB52S 8055 from the OP No.1 and 2. Complainant is the owner of the said vehicle. On 12.02.2016 complainant was proceeding towards Kolkata by the aforesaid vehicle and when the vehicle was at Barrackpur Kalyani road, at that time there was huge queue of the vehicles in front as well as in the back portion. All on a sudden the vehicle which was running just before the vehicle of the complainant applied break without any reason or rhythm and as a result the front portion of the vehicle of the complainant was badly damaged as the complainant’s vehicle dashed the said vehicle which was in his front. Similarly back portion of the complainant vehicle was seriously damaged by the back side vehicle.
At the time of incident one Nolini Biswas son of Khokan Biswas having valid DL being no.WB51 20060015538 valid from 30.08.2015 to 29.08.2018 was driving the aforesaid vehicle of the complainant.
Complainant informed the said fact to the OP No.1 on 15.02.2016 as 13.02.2016 and 14.02.2016 were holidays and office of the insurance company was closed.
Surveyor of the insurance company Sri Swapan Kapur inspected the vehicle.
Complainant on the said date of incident i.e on 12.02.2016 placed the vehicle for repairing and prayed for quotation from the reputed authorised concerned namely Mohan Motor Business Pvt. Ltd. of Mahindra and Mahindra. They placed and estimate to the tune of Rs.1,65,623.26 (Rupees One lakh sixty five thousand six hundred twenty three and twenty six paisa) dated 12.02.2016.
Complainant paid Rs.1,31,785.00 (Rupees One lakh thirty one thousand seven hundred eighty five) to the Mohan Motor Business Pvt. Ltd. by cash on 09.03.2016.
Complainant on several occasions requested the OPs to pay the aforesaid repairing cost as per terms and conditions of the policy but they did not pay any heed.
(3)
Opposite parties most illegally and to deprive the complainant from his legitimate claim sent a settlement information voucher to the complainant to the tune of Rs.46,663.00 (Rupees Forty six thousand six hundred sixty three) only which the complainant failed to accept.
As the OP No.1 &2 did not pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,31,785.00 (Rupees One lakh thirty one thousand seven hundred eighty five), hence the complainant files this case.
After receipt of notice, OP No.1 &2 appeared in this commission and filed written version before this commission and denied the entire allegations and further stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
Trial
During trial complainant Sashanka Shekhar Biswas filed affidavit in chief. He also submitted answer as per interrogatories of OP No. 1 &2.
OP No. 1 & 2 not yet filed affidavit in chief. They by filing a petition dated 05.12.2016 prayed for treating the written version as affidavit in chief. They filed answer as per interrogatories of the complainant.
Documents
Following documents have been filed in this case viz :
- Settlement Intimation Voucher issued by The New India Assurance Co. Ltd..........(One Sheet)........(Original)
- Money receipt issued by Mohan Motor Business Pvt. Ltd. dtd. 09.03.2016.............(One sheet).............(Xerox copy).
- Tax Paid Invoice issued by Mohan Motor Business Pvt. Ltd. relating to payment..............(Two sheets)............(Xerox copy)
- Pre-Invoice..........(Three sheets)...(Computerised copy)
- Manual Repair Order Form issued by Mohan Motor Business Pvt. Ltd......(one sheet)........(Xerox copy)
- Service Quotation..........(Two sheets)........(Xerox copy)
- Driving Licence issued by District Magistrate..........(One sheet).........( Xerox copy).
- Summary of Damage...........(One sheet)..........(Xerox copy)
- Certificate of Registration..........(One sheet)..........(Xerox copy)
10)Claim application of the complainant dtd. 15.02.2016........(One sheet)....(Xerox copy)
11) Tax Token...........(One sheet)...........(Xerox copy)
(4)
12)Insurance Policy of the Vehicle dtd.20.09.2015.......(Three sheets)......(Xerox)
Brief Notes of argument.
Complainant in support of his case not yet filed Brief Notes of Argument and OP NO.2 filed Brief Notes of Argument .
Argument
Ld. Adv. for the complainant argued before this commission that vehicle of the complainant was damaged in an accident but OP No.1 & 2 are not willing to pay entire cost of repairing. On the other hand they are giving pressure to the complainant to settle the matter after receiving Rs.46,663.00 (Rupees Forty six thousand six hundred sixty three). He further argued that complainant paid sum of Rs.1,31,785.00 (Rupees One lakh thirty one thousand seven hundred eighty five) for repairing of the aforesaid vehicle.
In reply Ld. Adv. for the OP No.1 & 2 argued that the vehicle was surveyed by the competent person and as per his report they approved the cost of repairing of the vehicle as Rs.46,663.00 (Rupees Forty six thousand six hundred sixty three) but complainant is not willing to accept the same.
Decision with Reasons
The present case is in between complainant and Insurance company. On perusal of policy dated 20.09.2015 we find that the complainant’s vehicle vide no. WB52S 8055 was covered by the said policy. OP No.1 &2 issued the said policy after receiving an amount of Rs. 31,085.00 (Rupees Thirty one thousand eighty five) as premium.
During hearing it appears before us that it is admitted fact that complainant is entitled to repairing cost of the vehicle which was damaged in an accident.
Ld. Adv. for the OP No.1 & 2 argued that aforesaid accident is questionable. Such type of accident may not take place. However, we find that complainant gave description as to how the incident took place and after considering the document on record we do not find any doubt about the incident.
It cannot be said that complainant intentionally caused the damage of his vehicle for claiming compensation. Moreover, it is clear before us that in such type of accident front side and back side of the vehicle may be damaged. Accordingly we do not find any merit in the argument of the Ld. Adv. for the OP No.1 & 2.
During hearing Ld. Adv. for the OP No. 1 & 2 argued that their surveyor surveyed the damaged vehicle on the point of repairing cost and after considering his report they approved Rs.46,663.00 (Rupees Forty six thousand six hundred sixty three) as repairing cost. But OP Non.1 & 2 failed to produce any report of surveyor in support of their contention. So the aforesaid contention remains a story.
(5)
On perusal of the documents on record we find that complainant produced the quotation issued by Mohan Motor Business Pvt. Ltd. As per said report total estimated cost were submitted as Rs.1,65,623.00 (One lakh sixty five thousand six hundred twenty three). On perusal of Money Receipt dated 09.03.2016 issued by Mohan Motor Business Pvt. Ltd. we find that complainant paid Rs.1,31,785.00 (Rupees One lakh thirty one thousand seven hundred eighty five) as cost of repairing of complainant’s vehicle vide no.WB52S 8055. So it is clear before us that complainant paid Rs.1,31,785.00 (Rupees One lakh thirty one thousand seven hundred eighty five) to Mohan Motor Business Pvt. Ltd. on 09.03.2016 as cost of repairing of the said vehicle.
During hearing Ld. Adv. for the OP No.1 & 2 failed to give any satisfactory explanation against the said bill.
Ld. Adv. for the complainant cited a decision reported in II(2017) CPJ 134(Chha). On perusal of the said decision we find that Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C., Chhatrishgarh passed the said decision. Hon’ble State Commission found in the said case that complainant’s vehicle was covered with insurance policy and engine of the vehicle was damaged badly. Surveyor was appointed and claimed was not yet settled. Surveyor’s report was not accepted as there was no signature of surveyor. Complainant had filed bills. Hon’ble State Commission in the said decision on the basis of bill pleased to directed the respondent/insurance company to pay Rs.62,055.00(Rupees Sixty two thousand fifty five) along with interest @ 9% per annum and litigation cost Rs.1,000.00 (Rupees One thousand).
Ld. Adv. for the OP No.1 cited a decision reported in 2011 AIR SC (Civil) 903.
On the perusal of the said decision we find that the said decision was relating to violation of terms of policy. In the present case there is no allegation of violation of terms and condition of policy. Accordingly we find that said decision is not applicable in the present case.
Ld. Adv. for the OP No.1 cited another decision reported in 1966 AIR SC 1644.
On the perusal of the said decision we find that the said decision was relating to cancellation of policy. In the present case there is no allegation of cancellation of policy. Accordingly we find that said decision is not applicable in the present case.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case, evidence of records and documents on record we find that complainant has able to established that he is entitled to get the aforesaid repairing cost from the OP No.1 & 2 and OP NO.1 &2 are bound to pay the same in favour of the complainant.
From the money receipt dated 09.03.2016, it appears that complainant paid Rs.1,31,785.00 (Rupees One lakh thirty one thousand seven hundred eighty five ) as repairing cost. From the Tax paid invoice we find that complainant paid Rs.67,000.00
(6)
(Rupees Sixty seven thousand) in cash and Rs.64,785.00 (Rupees Sixty four thousand seven hundred eighty five) by card. So it is clear before us that complainant paid Rs.1,31,785.00 (Rupees One lakh thirty one thousand seven hundred eighty five). Complainant in his petition of complaint prayed for recovery of Rs.1,31,785.00 (Rupees One lakh thirty one thousand seven hundred eighty five). But he in the body of the petition of complaint mentioned that cost of repairing is Rs.1,31,765 (Rupees One lakh thirty one thousand seven hundred sixty five). As we find that complainant paid Rs.1,31,785.00 (Rupees One lakh thirty one thousand seven hundred eighty five). So we think that OP should be asked to pay the said amount i.e. Rs.1,31,785.00 (Rupees One lakh thirty one thousand seven hundred eighty five) in favour of the complainant.
In the result present case succeeds. Hence,
It is
Ordered
that the present case be and the same is allowed on the context against OP No.1 & 2 with cost of Rs.3,000.00(Rupees three thousands) to be paid by OP NO. 1 &2 in favour of the complainant.
OP No.1-2 jointly or severally are directed to pay Rs.1,31,785.00 (Rupees One lakh thirty one thousand seven hundred eighty five) towards repairing cost of the vehicle of the complainant vide no. WB52S 8055 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from 09.03.2016 to actual date of payment within one month from this date failing which complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
OP No.1-2 jointly or severally are directed to pay Rs.10,000.00(Rupees Ten thousand) to the complainant as compensation for his physical harassment and for his mental pain and agony within one month from this order failing which complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the complainant as free of cost.
Let a copy of this order be sent to OP NO.1-2 for compliance.
Dictated & corrected by me
............................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri dAMAN pROSAD BISWAS,) .................................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri dAMAN pROSAD BISWAS,)
I concur,
.............................................
MEMBER
(NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY)
