West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/116/2013

Sri Subhas Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

28 Feb 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

                                                                                                 PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.        

 

 Complaint case No.116 /2013                                                         Date of disposal: 28/02/2014                               

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

                                                      MEMBER : 

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

   

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. R. Maitra. Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. S  Dutta. Advocate.                                   

          

    Sri Subhas Das, S/o-Manmatha Das of Patnabazar, P.O. Medinipur, P.S. Medinipur, Dist   

    Paschim Medinipur.…………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Medinipur Branch Office at  Kshudiramnagar, P.O. Medinipur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur.
2. Indusind Bank Ltd., Branch Office, Kusum Apartment, O.T. Road, Inda, P.O. Inda, P.S. Kharagpur (T), Dist. Paschim Medinipur, Represented by Asstt. Vice President Sri Malay Chakraborty……………Ops.

 

            The case of the complainant Sri Subash Das, in short, in that a Tata Indigo ECS LS car bearing its registration no.WB-36C/2685 was purchased by him with insurance coverage under policy no.311901/31/2012/12150 with effect from 16/12/11 to 15/12/12 issued by Op No.1Oriental Insurance Company.  The said car was unfortunately damaged due to a road accident on NH-06 near Jinshara.  The matter was reported to the Op No.1 with surveyors report assessing loss of damage of the said vehicle.  After inspection it is reported that about 4/-(Four lakhs) only was incurred as repairing cost.  With all documents along with bills and vouchers, the complainant made a claim but the Op delayed to pay the compensation.  Alleging deficiency of service the complainant claims compensation of 4,00.000/- (Four lakhs) only and litigation cost of 5,000/-(Five thousand) only against the Op.

              During pendency of this case, Industrial Bank Ltd.  has entered into appearance with the prayer for being a party thereto and thereby they contested the case by filing written objection

Contd…………….P/2

 

                                                                   

- ( 2 ) -

stating therein that the Banking Company entered into the agreement being its No.WMK00554C dated 14/12/11.  The complainant accepted a loan accommodation for a sum of 3,80,000/-(Thirty

eight thousand) only with an interest agreed to repay the same in 48 equal installments with effect from 14/12/11 at the rate of 11540/- (Eleven thousand five hundred forty) only.  Since the vehicle                                                                                                                             

was hypothecated with the Op. No. 2, the compensation  granted is to be paid to the complainant after the appropriation of the unpaid installment of loan (surplus if any on adjustment of arrear loan to be paid in favour of the petitioner). Thus, the petitioner may get compensation for the damage of his insured vehicle from the Op no.1 through Op. No.2.

             Op. No.1 Oriental Insurance Company made their written version against the complainant that the entire case is a matter of record but to accept that they have appointed a surveyor Mr. Surya Dutta for investigation and assessment of loss and damage of the vehicle in question.  Accordingly, the surveyor made his Inspection report on 21/06/13 and advised the complainant to submit an estimate from Tata authorized Repairer.  But the complainant submitted an estimate from a non-authorized garage for 9,65,622/-(Nine lakhs sixty five thousand six hundred twenty two) only whereas the vehicle was valued to 56870/-(Fifty six thousand eight hundred seventy) only.  Subsequent by Op. No.1 came to know the vehicle was sold at 1,60,000/-(One lakh sixty thousand) only and upon discussion the Op. offered for compromise proposal.  In this connection, no bills and vouchers towards repairing of the vehicle was submitted by the complainant.  In view of the fact, there is no deficiency of service against this Op. No.1 and as such the case should be dismissed.

            Upon case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1. Whether the case is maintainable for want of cause of action?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation as prayed for?
3. What other relief or reliefs the complainant is entitled to ?

                                        

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 3:

           All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

     Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the vehicle being registration No.WB-36C/2685 purchased by the complainant met an accident within the period of insurance policy under Op No.1.  According to their advice, the vehicle was repaired. Even so, the Op. No.1

Contd…………….P/3

 

                                                                    

- ( 3 ) -

delays the payment.  It is to be noted that the loss was settled at 2,80,000/-(Two lakhs eighty thousand) only.  But, the Op. has agreed to pay 1,68,600/- (One lakh sixty eight thousand six hundred) only. Ld. Advocate for the Op. No.1 made his reply that there is no dispute as regard to the damage of the vehicle, insured with them but the vehicle in fact was not repaired by an authorized repairer as suggested by the insurance company. In that case, bills and vouchers were submitted before the insurance company.  In such case, the Op. No.1 considers the case of the complainant and agreed to pay 1,68,600/- (One lakh sixty eight thousand six hundred) only just for regard the fact that the complainant had maintained the payment of policy.                                                                                                                                      

       In this connection, the submission of Ld. Advocate for Op. No.2 made before us is that whatever compensation  is granted in favour of the complainant, the Op. No.2 should not be deprived of from appropriating their claim on account of arrears towards the loan duly granted in favour of complainant in purchasing the vehicle in question.

       We have considered the case as a whole.  It appears that there is no dispute regarding the

fact of damage of the vehicle in question.  But only point is to be decided whether repairing work was at all effected to.  In this aspect there is no evidence establishing the fact of alleged repairing work of the vehicle.  Under such circumstances, according to the policy, there is no scope for compensation to be awarded in favour of the complainant.  But, since the damaged vehicle was insured with the Op No.1 and the admitted fact on incident of damage took place within the valid period of insurance policy, it is lawful for payment of compensation in favour of the complainant as to their discussion and proposal through not subsequently agreed by each other. 

               Now, question is that what should be the quantum of compensation.  In absence of any acceptable assessment report on repairing cost, it is not possible for us to determine a just amount of compensation for relief claimed by the complainant.  So reasonably we may propose for an amount on the basis of agreement dated 13/9/12 and subsequent proposal as made on 28/10/13.

              Under the fact and circumstances as above the amount on loss assessment agreement on 2,80,000/-(Two lakhs eighty thousand) only and thereafter proposal for 1,68,600/- should be taken upto account for consideration in the background of the case of the parties together with the claim of Op. no.2.  Thus, it would be just and proper to fix an average amount of the both amounts, neither party will be prejudiced.  Therefore the amount of compensation may be fixed at 2,24,300/- (Two lakhs twenty four thousand three hundred) only  payable by the Op. No.1 through Op. No.2 after satisfaction of the later.        

Contd……………P/4

 

                                                                   

- ( 4 ) -

            Thus, all the issues are disposed of accordingly.

                 Hence, it is,

                                    Ordered,

                                                    that the case be and the same is allowed on contest with no order of costs.

                 The complainant Sri Subash Das do here by get a compensation of 2,24,300/- (Two lakhs twenty four thousand three hundred) only payable by the Op. No.1 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through Op. No.2 Industrial Bank Ltd. entitling Op. No.2 for appropriating unpaid amount of loan if any within 60 (sixty) days from this date of order.

 

Dic. & Corrected by me              

        

 

         President                                           Member                                                  President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                          Paschim Medinipur.