Bihar

Patna

CC/387/2014

Sunil Kumar, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Universal Sampo General Insurance Co. Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

30 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
PATNA, BIHAR
 
Complaint Case No. CC/387/2014
( Date of Filing : 23 Sep 2014 )
 
1. Sunil Kumar,
S/o- Sri Rameshwar Parwar, R/o- Lekha Nagar, Khagaul Cantt. Road Danapur, patna-801105
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Branch Manager, Universal Sampo General Insurance Co. Ltd,
402, Grand Plaza Frazer Road Patna,
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 30 Nov 2016
Final Order / Judgement

Present         (1)      Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                 President

                    (2)      Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

Date of Order : 30.11.2016

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

  1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
  1. To direct the opposite party to settle the claim as the company has not allowed the entire expenses as per estimate/bill submitted by the petitioner.
  2. To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty Thousand only ) as compensation.
  3. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 5,000/- ( Rs. Five Thousand only ) as litigation costs.
  1. The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-

The complainant has asserted that he has availed loan from Allahabad Bank CRRB, Patna and purchased one TATA Motor vehicle, which was insured by opposite party company. The policy was valid upto 07.02.2014 as will appear from annexure – 1. The aforesaid vehicle was registered with Regional Transport Authority bearing registration no. BR – 01GB – 3381 vide annexure – 2.

It has been further asserted that the aforesaid vehicle met an accident on 24.09.2013 near Agamkuan Police Station and was damaged. At the time of accident the vehicle was driven by Vijya Kumar Singh driver having Driving License no. 2908/97 which was valid upto 09.02.2016 vide annexure – 3.

After the accident, the complainant informed the insurance company and the company deputed a surveyor for assessment of damaged vehicle. The claimant submitted the estimate of repairing granted by M/S K.G.N. Automobile, Patna dated 27.09.2013 which comes to Rs. 75,800/- vide annexure – 4 series. The vehicle has been repaired and final bill has been submitted to the insurance company which comes to Rs. 76,480/-. The spare parts purchased from local firm i.e. M/s Rahul Glass and M/s Sri Sai Motors and the relevant bills have been submitted to insurance company properly. The aforesaid bills has been annexed as annexure – 5 series.

After submission of the entire bill and the documents the complainant has visited several times to the office of insurance company and requested to settle the claim. It is surprising that the company has settled the claim by allowing Rs. 7,893/- instead of Rs. 76,480/- which was total cost of repair and parts. The details of which have been mentioned in annexure – 5 series.

The complainant has requested to opposite party for reconsideration and allowing the fresh sanction of the amount of Rs. 68,587/- by filing annexure – 6 and also by giving legal notice vide annexure – 7 but no steps has been taken by the company with regard to reconsideration of the claim.

From the record it appears that when registered notice sent to opposite party did not returned and status report with regard to service of the notice was files by the complainant then vide order dated 20.02.2015 and 21.07.2015 the Tamila was declared valid and the opposite party was allowed several adjournments for filing written statement but the opposite party did not appeared and as such on 10.11.2016 this case was heard ex – parte.

Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

The fact of this case has been mentioned in foregoing paragraphs briefly.

It goes without saying that as there is no counter version of the fact asserted by complainant on oath in complaint petition hence we have no option but to accept the fact asserted by the complainant in complaint petition in toto.

In absence of any written statement by opposite party we are not able to know the compelling reasons in allowing only Rs. 7,893/-.

It is needless to say that the fact asserted by the complainant in complaint petition clearly shows deficiency on the part of opposite party as they have failed to pass any order on the application as well as legal notice of the complainant as will appear from annexure – 6 and 7.

For the discussion made above we direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 68,587/- ( Rs. Sixty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Seven only ) to the complainant within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which opposite party will have to pay an interest @ 9% on the amount of Rs. 68,587/- ( Rs. Sixty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Seven only ) till its final payment is made.

Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- ( Rs. Five Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of two months.

Accordingly this complaint petition stands allowed to the extent referred above.

     

 

                             Member                                                                              President

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.