West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/119/2017

Subrata Pramanik - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Subrata Das

08 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

     Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and

    Sagarika Sarkar, Member.   

     Complaint Case No.119/2017     

.          Subrata Pramanik, S/o Ajay Pramanik of Sangatbazar, P.O. Medinipur, P.S. Kotwali,

           District – Paschim Medinipur

                                                                                                            ………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

            The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Medinipur Branch, Kshudiramnagar

            (Medinipur), P.O. Medinipur, P.S. Kotwali, District- Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721101.

                                                                                                 .....……….….Opp. Party.

                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr. Subrata Das, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Akshyay Kumar Khamrui, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 08/11/2017

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President –This consumer complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act has been filed by the complainant Sri Subrata Pramanik against the above named O.P, alleging deficiency in service on their part.

              Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows:-

              The complainant purchased a car of Mahindra & Mahindra on 01/10/2012 and got it registered vide registration no.WB34AB-3684. He also insured his said vehicle with the O.P.-Insure Company under a policy being no.311901-31-2016-5290 covering the period from 1/10/2015 to 30/09/2016.  On 31/05/2016 at about 9 a.m.,  the said vehicle met with an accident at Debra and it was totally damaged.  Complainant intimated the said fact to the O.P.-Insurance Company and as per their advice, he took the damaged vehicle to the garage of Star India Pvt. Ltd.  After inspection of the damaged vehicle, the surveyor, so appointed by the O.P,  assessed the liability of the insurer at Rs.6,03,000/-.  It is stated

Contd…………………..P/2

 

 

( 2 )

that at the time of insurance on 1/10/2015,  the O.P.-Insurance Company assessed the value of the vehicle at Rs.9,50,000/-.  The O.P.-Insurance Company most illegally by their letter dated 19/06/2017 intimated the complainant that they want to settle the claim at Rs.4,68,000/- and for that reason the complainant did not accept the same and requested the O.P. to pay the amount as per assessment of the surveyor.  O.P.-Insurance Company refused to pay the same and hence the complainant,  praying for an order directing the O.P. to pay Rs.6,03,000/- and an award of compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.  

                  The opposite party-Insurance Company has contested this case by filling a written version.  

                   Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party-Insurance Company that after receiving the report dated 8/12/2016 of the surveyor-cum-loss assessor, the O.P. verified the same and settled the claim at Rs.4,68,000/- disagreeing with the liability assessed by the surveyor. It is stated that this difference in assessment arose because of the fact that the surveyor considered the IDV of the vehicle at Rs.9,50,000/- as in the policy which was on 1/10/2015.  Since the accident occurred thereafter about eight months, the value of the vehicle decreased @ Rs.18,055/- per month and as such after eight months the value of the vehicle was decreased by Rs.1,44,444/- and so the IDV at the time of accident after eight months became Rs.8,05,556/-.  From this amount, salvage Rs.3,45,000/- and policy excess Rs.2000/- in total Rs.3,47,000/- as assessed by the surveyor was deducted.  IDV on the date of accident was considered in round figure as Rs.8,15,000/- instead of  Rs.8,05,556/-  and after deduction, liability of the company came down to Rs.4,68,000/-.  It is stated that the claimant/complainant should have accepted the offer as it was scientifically assessed.  So according to the O.P, there was no deficiency in service on their part and the petition of complaint is therefore liable to be rejected.

           To prove his case, the complainant has examined himself as PW-1 by tendering a written affidavit-in-chief and during his evidence,  documents were marked as exhibits 1 to 5 respectively.

            On the other hand, O.P. adduced no evidence.

                                                                 Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?
2. Is the complainant a consumer under the provision of C.P. Act?
3. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?

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

 

                                                                      ( 3 ) 

                   

Decision with reasons

           Point no.1:-

                 Maintainability of this case has not been questioned at the time of final hearing of this case.  We also do not find anything adverse to hold regarding maintainability of this case.  This point is accordingly decided in the affirmative and in favour of the complainant. 

 

            Point nos. 2 :-

                 It is not denied and disputed that the vehicle in question of the complainant was duly insured with the O.P. vide policy no.311901-31-2016-5290 covering the period from 01/10/2015 to 30/9/2016.  So, admittedly the complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the O.P.

               This point is accordingly decided in the affirmative and in favour of the complainant.       

            Point no.3:-

                        Undisputedly, the insured vehicle in question met with an accident on 31/05/2016 and it was totally damaged and thereafter the complainant lodged a claim of insurance before the O.P.  Admittedly, the surveyor-cum-loss-assessor assessed the loss of the damaged vehicle at Rs.6,03,000/-.  Said survey- report has been marked as exhibit 5 in this case. It is the case of the O.P.-Insurance Company that on the date of insurance of the vehicle,  IDV was Rs.9,50,000/- and since the accident took place eight months after the date of insurance so the value of the vehicle decreased @ Rs.18,055/- per month and after deducting the said decreased value for eight months, IDV of the vehicle on the date of accident was Rs.8,05,000/-.  From this amount salvage Rs.3,45,000/- and policy excess Rs.2000/- in total Rs.3,47,000/- as  assessed by the surveyor was deducted.  IDV on the date of accident was considered in round figure as Rs.8,15,000/- instead of  Rs.8,05,556/-  and after deduction, liability of the company came down to Rs.4,68,000/-.  At the time of hearing of argument, Ld. Lawyer of the O.P.-Insurance Company submitted that such assessment was scientifically made and the complainant is not entitled to the amount of liability as assessed by their surveyor.  As against this, Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted that when the policy in question was obtained then the O.P.-Insurance Company assessed the  IDV of the vehicle at Rs.9,50,000/- and accordingly the complainant paid premium of policy over that amount and therefore the O.P-Insurance Company is under obligation to assess the loss over the said IDV of the vehicle and their surveyor rightly assessed the loss considering the said IDV and after deducting salvage and policy access, at Rs.6,03,000/-.  In support of such contention, Ld. Lawyer of the complainant referred a decision of the Hon’ble

Contd…………………..P/4

 

 

( 4 )

N.C.D.R.C., reported in 2002(1)CPR83(NC).  We have gone through the said decision of the Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C. and found that in that case also loss was assessed over the IDV of the vehicle on the date of obtaining policy.  So, in view of the said decision of the Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C., we cannot accept the plea of the O.P.-Insurance Company that loss is to be assessed considering the value of the vehicle on the date of accident.  We are therefore of the view that the loss of damage as assessed by the surveyor of the O.P.-Insurance Company vide his report dated 8/12/2016 (exhibit-5) is to be accepted and the complainant is entitled to get the amount of Rs.6,03,000/- as claim of insurance from the O.P.  O.P.-Insurance Company has therefore deficiency in service in not settling the claim of insurance as per report (Exbt.-5) of the surveyor.

              This point is accordingly decided against the O.P.  

            Point no.4:-

                         In view of our above findings , the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as sought for.  However regarding the amount of compensation and litigation cost we think that an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost, if allowed, would meet the ends of justice.

 

 All the points are accordingly disposed of.

 In the result, the complaint case succeeds.

                                                           Hence it is,

                                                             Ordered,

                                          that the complaint case no.119/2017  is allowed on contest with cost against the O.P.  O.P.-Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.6,03,000/- to the complainant towards claim of insurance with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.  O.P. is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.  All such payments shall be made within one month from this date of order i.d. 9% penalty p.a. shall carry over the said awarded amount.

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

               Dictated & corrected by me

 

 

                           President                                 Member                                         President 

                                                                                                                             District Forum

                                                                                                                         Paschim Medinipur