BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM
(DISTRICT FORUM)
NORTH TRIPURA: KAILASHAHAR.
C A S E NO. C.C. 04 of 2014
Shri Mithun Malakar
Son of late Rajendra Malakar
Village – Kumarghat, District - Unakoti
…. COMPLAINANT
V E R S U S
Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Dharmanagar Branch, Office Road,
Dharmanagar, North Tripura
……….. OPPOSITE PARTY
P R E S E N T
SHRI D. M. JAMATIA
PRESIDENT
DISTRICT FORUM
NORTH TRIPURA: KAILASHAHAR
A N D
Shri Manish Chandra Saha, Member
Smti. , S. Deb, Member
C O U N S E L
For the complainant : Shri Sunirmal Deb, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Advocate
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015
J U D G M E N T
This petition has been preferred by Shri Mithun Malakar under section 12(1) of the Consumer’s Protection Act, 1986 for granting compensation for the alleged damage of his Mahindra Max vehicle bearing registration No. TR-02-A-2800, which was insured with the OP., i.e., United India Insurance Company limited vide policy No. 130901/31/10/01/00004345.
2. The case of the complainant, as it appears from the petition, is that on the way to G.B. Hospital, Agartala from Kanchanpur with one patient when he reached at Magazinepara under Ambassa P.S. at around 4 p.m on 18-03-2012 with his Mahindra Max vehicle bearing registration No. TR-02-A-2800, another truck bearing registration No. AS-25C-9564 coming from the opposite side in excessive speed suddenly dashed his vehicle causing severe damage to the vehicle and as a result, R.H.S. rear body, rear passenger door, side glass and oil tanker of his vehicle were fully damaged and thereafter, he informed the said accidental matter to the O.P. and requested for repairing the damaged vehicle as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, but at the relevant time being asked by the insurance company to arrange immediate repairing of the damaged vehicle at his own cost, he arranged shifting of the damaged vehicle to Kailashahar by pulling his vehicle with another truck and after repairing, a bill of Rs. 48,300/- was submitted by M/S Mechanical Workshop of Vidyanagar, Kailashahar and when after coming to the Branch Office at Dharmanagar he submitted the said bill for arranging payment, the O.P.-Insurance Company denied to pay the repairing expenditure incurred by the complainant. Under compulsion, one Advocate’s Notice also had to be sent by the complainant on 10-12-2013 by registered post to the O.P., but a reply was sent by the O.P.-Insurance Company attributing the fact of the repairing and expenditure to be false and as such, the complainant has been compelled to file the present case for getting compensation of Rs. 2,68,300/-, including the repairing charge of the vehicle, cost of bringing the damaged vehicle from Ambassa to Kailashahar by pulling it with another truck, loss of total monthly income for 11(eleven) months during the period of repairing and for mental pain and sufferings.
3. The O.P.-Insurance Company by filing written statement denied all the allegations and consequent payment of compensation. It is alleged in the written statement that the complainant even did not inform the O.P. about the occurrence of the accident and for obvious reason the O.P. did not get any scope to engage authorized surveyor to inspect the vehicle at the place of accident and could not prepare estimate for repairing. It is also mentioned in the written statement that the O.P.-Insurance Company for obvious reason did not inform the complainant to arrange immediate repairing of the alleged damaged vehicle from his own, but after lapse of about 11(eleven) months from the date of alleged accident, the complainant submitted a big amount of Rs. 48,300/- as the cost of maintenance/repairing of the alleged damaged vehicle, which could not be accepted by the O.P.-Insurance Company in view of the fact that as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, it is the duty of the complainant to inform the O.P.-Insurance Company in writing immediately after the occurrence of the accident or damage of the insured vehicle and thereafter, it is the duty of the O.P.-Insurance Company to engage surveyor to inspect the damaged vehicle at the spot and to prepare estimate and thereafter, a decision is to be taken whether it would be repaired by the Insurance Company or the complainant will be allowed to arrange repairing from his own and to submit the bill for payment and as such, the complainant is not entitled to seek any compensation in the present case.
4. The complainant submitted his examination in chief on affidavit and on oath exhibited the following documents:-
(i) FIR, marked as Ext. 1 ;
(ii) Certified copy of charge sheet, marked as Ext. 2 ;
(iii) Certified copy of Mechanical Inspection Report, marked as Ext. 3 ;
(iv) Bill issued by M/S Mechanical Workshop, marked as Ext. 4 ;
(v) Policy of insurance company, marked as Ext. 5 ;
(vi) Copy of driving licence, marked as Ext. 6.
5. The O.P.-Insurance Company examined and submitted examination in chief on affidavit of one witness, but no documents have been exhibited from their side.
F I N D I N G S & D E C I S I O N
6. The complainant at the time of examination in chief and cross-examination submitted certain documents, which were exhibited. From the Ext. 2, charge sheet and Ext. 3, Mechanical Inspection Report, it appears that one accident involving Mahindra Max vehicle bearing registration No. TR-02-A-2800 and a truck bearing registration No. AS-25C-9564 had occurred at Magazinepara under Ambassa PS on 18-03-2012, but from the cross-examination of the complainant and also from the examination in chief of the O.P. it is very much clear that just after the occurrence of the accident the complainant did never inform in writing to the OP, as a result, for obvious reason, the OP could not engage any surveyor to inspect the alleged damaged Mahindra Max to prepare estimate for probable expenditure in the event of repair. At the time of cross-examination, the complainant specifically stated that he did not submit any written information of accident to the Insurance Company and also specifically stated that he did not pray for engaging any surveyor. It is also very much clear from the cross-examination of the complainant that even after the repair, he did not inform in writing to the insurance company.
7. To come to a decision whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation even if information of accident is not immediately given to the O.P.-Insurance Company in writing and even if no probable estimate of expenditure could be prepared by an engaged surveyor, the relevant provision of the Insurance Policy enumerated at page 7 of the Policy below Heading “Conditions” (marked as Ext. 5), the condition No.1 and condition No. 2 are reproduced:-
“1. Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution Inquest or Fatal Inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender.
2. No admission offer promise payment or indemnity shall be made or given by or on behalf of the insured without the written consent of the Company which shall be entitled if it so desires to take over and conduct in the name of the insured the defence or settlement of any claim or to prosecute in the name of the insured for its own benefit any claim for indemnity or damages or otherwise and shall have full discretion in the conduct of any proceedings or in the settlement of any claim and the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company may require.”
8. From the conditions of the policy, it appears that just after the occurrence of any accident, it is the duty of the complainant to inform in writing to the OP-Insurance Company so as to enable the OP to arrange engagement of any surveyor to inspect the damaged vehicle at the spot and to prepare estimate of probable expenditure in the event of repair, but in the instant case the complainant did not even inform the OP in writing, but at the time of filing this petition or at the time of sending Advocate’s Notice to the OP, the complainant categorically stated that he had informed in writing to the OP about the occurrence of the accident and also stated that at the advice of the OP he had shifted the damaged vehicle from Ambassa to Kailashahar for the purpose of repairing and after repairing, he submitted the bill for payment, but the payment was not made by the OP and under compulsion, initially he had sent Advocate’s Notice to the OP for payment, but when payment was not made by the OP, he has approached this Forum for compensation. But, at the time of cross-examination, the complainant specifically stated that he did never inform the OP in writing about the occurrence of the accident and also even after the repairing of the alleged damaged vehicle, he did not lodge any written information to the OP for payment.
9. During the hearing of argument advanced for and on behalf of the complainant and OP, we have carefully gone through the case records, including the provisions of the policy and we have carefully perused the bill submitted by M/S Mechanical Workshop (Ext. 4). It appears from the bill that against item Sl. No. 2 under the column ‘quantity’ it is written 11,000, but under the column ‘rate’, it is nil and under the column ‘amount’, it is written 11,000/-. Against item Sl. No. 3 under column ‘quantity’ it is written 1500, under column ‘rate’, it is written 1500 and under column ‘amount’ it is written 1500/-. Against item Sl. No. 4 under the column ‘quantity’ it is written 1300, under column ‘rate’ it is written 1300/- and under the column ‘amount’ it is written 1300/-. Against item Sl. No. 5, under column ‘quantity’ nothing is written, but under column ‘rate’ it is written 1500/- and under column ‘amount’ it is written 1500/-. Against item Sl. No. 6, under the column ‘quantity’ it is written 450, under the column ‘rate’ it is written 48500/-, but under the column ‘amount’ it is only 4500/- and in the bill total amount has been shown as Rs. 48,300/-.
10. On careful examination of the bill, it is very much clear that the bill was submitted in a hurried manner. There are huge discrepancies in the bill, as prepared. As such, a strong doubt arises in the mind of this Forum about the genuineness of the bill and it is also difficult to believe the alleged repairing of the vehicle even if the bill was submitted after maintaining all formalities, but in the instant case the total procedure, as required under the policy, was not properly maintained by the complainant. Unless the estimate is prepared by a surveyor after inspecting the place of occurrence and the alleged damaged vehicle, it is not open to the complainant to arrange immediate repairing and thereafter, submit the bill to the OP for payment.
11. Under the stated circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant has not come to this Forum in clean hands and as per the terms and conditions of the policy. This Forum is not in confusion that one accident had occurred involving the Mahindra Max vehicle of the complainant on 18-03-2012 at Magazinepara under Ambassa PS, but unless the gravity of the damage of the vehicle could be assessed by the OP after maintaining all formalities as per the terms and conditions of the policy, this Forum can not direct the OP to make the payment of the billed amount submitted by the complainant and as such, this Forum is of the view that the complainant is not entitled to get compensation in view of the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.
12. Accordingly, the petition filed by the complainant seeking compensation is rejected.
13. Furnish copy of this judgment to the complainant and the opposite party free of cost.
14. The case stands disposed of on contest.
ANNOUNCED
(D.M.Jamatia)
I agree I agree PRESIDENT
(Manish Ch. Saha) (Smti. S. Deb)
MEMBER MEMBER
