BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM
(DISTRICT FORUM)
UNOKUTI TRIPURA : KAILASHAHAR
C A S E NO. C. C. 17/10
SHRI JAYABRATA PAUL CHOWDHURY,
S/O- LATE JOGENDRA PAUL CHOWDHURY,
Of -PECHARTHAL BAZAAR,
PS -PECHARTHAL,
UNAKOTI DISTRICT.
…......COMPLAINANT.
V E R S U S
1. The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Dharmanagar Branch,
Dharmanagar,
North Tripura.
….....OPPOSITE PARTY.
P R E S E N T
SHRI P. K. DUTTA
PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM
UNAKOTI DISTRICT::KAILASHAHAR
A N D
SMTI. S. DEB, MEMBER
SHRI P. SINHA, MEMBER
C O U N S E L
For the complainant : Mr. A. Sen, Advocate
For the OP : Sri A. Bhattacharjee, Advocate
ORIGINAL DATE OF INSTITUTION :14-06-2017
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON :20-02-2019
J U D G M E N T
This is a complaint preferred by the complainant Sri Jayabrata Paul Chowdhury U/s 12(1) of the C.P. Act against the opposite party praying for awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- (Rupees one lac sixty thousand) and also Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) for mental pain and sufferings for deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party for not paying the repairing cost of the vehicle.
2. The case of the complainant, as narrated in the complaint petition is that, he is the owner of an Alto car bearing registration no. TR 02 F 0352 and the said car was insured by the OP Vide Policy bearing no. 1309013115P016162892. On 24.05.2016 his nephew namely, Debraj Paul Chowdhury went out with his said car for collecting money from market and when he was returning home at night, on way near Railway over bridge at Pecharthal, he entered into a road side hotel for having dinner after parking the vehicle on the extreme left side of the road. When he was taking dinner suddenly he heard a big crushing noise and came out of the hotel and saw that one truck bearing no. NL 01 L 4319 dashed his vehicle from the backside coming down rashly and negligently. After being dashed, his car moved forward and dashed another truck bearing no. TR 03 1869 which was parked in front of his said car. As a result, his car got damaged in the front and backside. It is further contended in the complaint petition that after the accident the complainant informed the matter at Pecharthal Police Station, but the Police Authority did not receive his complaint and thereafter, he filed a written complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unakoti District, Kailashahar on the basis of which Pecharthal PS Case No. 19 of 2016, U/Ss 279/427 of IPC was registered and on completion of investigation, IO submitted charge sheet. Thereafter, the complainant informed the matter of accident and damage to the OP which was received by the OP on 27.07.2016, but the OP did not pay any compensation to the complainant and asked the complainant to claim the compensation money from the truck owner which dashed his Alto car. Under that circumstance, the complainant filed the instant case on the ground of negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- (Rupees one lac sixty thousand only) for damage and Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) for pain and sufferings, total cost of Rs. 1,80,000/- (Rupees one lac eighty thousand only) with 12% interest.
3. On receipt of the notice OP appeared and filed written statement denying the claim of the complainant and stated that on receiving the application from the complainant the OP engaged Surveyor Sri Malayendra Ghosh Roy to investigate the facts. Since Surveyor visited the workshop namely, 'Friend's Motor Works' Rajbari, Dharmanagar on 29.03.2016 and found that the driver had driven the said vehicle on road in running condition and also in good condition in all respects and opined that the complainant had changed few more parts beyond the estimate which were not actually damaged. The complainant spent money for beautification and modernization of the said vehicle apart from actual extent of damage for which the OP is not liable to pay compensation on that count. However, the Surveyor ultimately assessed loss of Rs. 35,014/- (Rupees thirty five thousand fourteen only) only for the damage of the vehicle and accordingly, on calculation the opposite party offered to pay Rs. 33,292/- (Rupees thirty three thousand two hundred ninety two only) to the complainant and the he received the amount without any protest and with his full satisfaction, but surprisingly the complainant filed the instant complaint petition claiming compensation without any basis and as such, the claim deserves dismissal.
4. Complainant has adduced evidence by way of examination-in-chief on affidavit as PW 1 in the same line as stated in his complaint petition and as such, for the sake of brevity his evidence is not repeated. However, during re-examination, complainant has exhibited the following documents:-
Certified copy of FIR, complaint petition, Final Report, witness list, charge sheet, seizure list, MVI Report and order sheet in total 22 sheets, marked Exhibit 1/1 to 1/6,
Xerox copy of insurance policy and on comparison with the original marked Exhibit 2,
Xerox copy of tax token and on comparison with the original marked Exhibit 3,
Xerox copy of registration certificate of the vehicle bearing no. TR 02 F 0352 and on comparison with the original marked Exhibit 4,
Positive photographs (nine nos) marked Exhibit 5/2 to 5/9,
Xerox copy of driving license in the name of Debraj Paul Chowdhury and in comparison with the original marked Exhibit 6,
Xerox copy of pollution certificate in respect of the vehicle marked Exhibit 7.
In cross, complainant stated that the truck vehicle dashed his Alto car and that repairing works of his vehicle was done at 'Friend's Motor', Dharmanagar and that Surveyor inspected his vehicle at that time and he also received Rs. 33,200/-. In cross, complainant further stated that he lodged no complaint against receipt of that amount and he received the amount with his full satisfaction.
From the side of the OP one witness, namely, Sri Sankar Biswas, Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Dharmanagar Branch has adduced evidence as DW 1 and in his examination in chief he stated that as per application filed by the complainant the OP engaged Surveyor Sri Malayendra Ghosh Roy to investigate the facts and loss of complainant's vehicle no. TR 02 F 0352. On 29.03.2016 said Surveyor visited the workshop namely, 'Friend's Motor Works', Rajbari, Dharmanagar and found that the driver had driven the vehicle on road in running condition and also in good condition in all respects. However, the Surveyor ultimately assessed loss of Rs. 35,014/- for the said alleged accident and accordingly the OP assessed loss and damage of Rs. 33,292/- and forwarded the same to the Divisional Manager and the said proposal was agreed, but the complainant being annoyed filed this false case with demand and compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/-.
During re-examination, DW 1 has exhibited the following documents:-
I) Photocopy of Policy in the name of the complainant and on admission by both sides it is marked Exhibit A,
II) Original copy of Surveyor's report in nine sheets marked Exhibit B/1 to B/9,
III) Bill of Surveyor dated 31.03.2016 in one sheet marked Exhibit C.
IV) 08 nos of positive photographs in two sheets marked Exhibit D1 to D2.
V) Xerox copy of registration certificate of vehicle bearing no. TR 02 F 0352 marked Exhibit E on admission of both sides.
VI) Calculation sheet prepared by the OP in one sheet marked Exhibit F.
VII) Assessment sheet prepared by the OP and the payment receipt in favour of the claimant in two sheets marked Exhibit G1 to G2.
In cross, DW 1 denied that the complainant is entitled to get the claim which he claimed in his petition.
5. During the course of argument, learned counsel of the complainant submitted that the complainant sustained huge loss as he had to repair many parts of his damaged vehicle and the compensation awarded by the insurance company is too meager and he prayed for getting an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- for the repairing cost of the vehicle and also Rs. 20,000/- for mental pain and sufferings.
On the other hand, learned counsel of the OP submitted that the complainant has been awarded an amount of Rs. 33,292/- and he received the amount without any protest and with his full satisfaction and as such, he cannot claim any further amount now and the case deserves dismissal.
6. The only point necessary for adjudication of the case in hand is whether there is any deficiency on the part of the OP No.1 by not paying the legitimate cost of repairing to the complainant?
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION
7. From the Survey Report, Exhibit B/9, it is found that the Surveyor on being duly appointed by the OP-insurance company assessed the loss of the vehicle of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 35,014/- and submitted his assessment report to the insurance company. From the summary of assessment (Exhibit G/1) it is found that on metal items, assessment was made at Rs. 1339/-, on rubber/plastic items assessment was made at Rs. 1965/- and on labour charges, assessment was made at Rs. 19928/- and thus, total amount of assessment for repairing of the damaged vehicle of the complainant was fixed at Rs. 35,292/-. Out of this amount an amount of Rs. 1,000/- and another amount of Rs. 1,000/- was deducted as less policy access and less selvage respectively and the total payable amount was accordingly calculated at Rs. 33,292/-. From Exhibit G/2, payment receipt, it is found that the complainant Jayabrata Pal Chowdhury received the amount of Rs. 33,292/- under his signature. Complainant during cross examination also admitted that he received the said amount of compensation of Rs. 33,292/- awarded to him by the OP-insurance company and against the said assessed amount he did not lodge any complaint, rather he received the amount with his full satisfaction. Once the complainant has received the amount with his full satisfaction leaving no room for protest, he is barred to claim any further amount. Had the complainant not being satisfied with the assessment of loss, he would not have received the amount in such manner. As such, the instant claim of the complainant appears to be without any basis and accordingly, it deserves dismissal.
The point is decided accordingly.
ORDER
8. In the result, it is ordered that the complainant is not entitled to any further amount from the OP-insurance company and the case is dismissed being devoid of merit.
9. With this observation, the complaint filed by the complainant stands disposed of on contest.
10. Furnish copy of this judgment to the complainant and O.P free of cost through their respective learned counsel.
ANNOUNCED
(P. K. DUTTA)
PRESIDENT
(S. DEB) (P. SINHA)
MEMBER MEMBER
