IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT SILIGURI.
CONSUMER CASE NO. 56/S/2016. DATE OF FILING: 20-05-2016.
BEFORE PRESIDENT : SRI KANHAIYA PRASAD SHAH,
President, D.C.D.R.C., Siliguri.
MEMBER : SRI TAPAN KUMAR BARMAN &
MALLIKA SAMADDER.
COMPLAINANT : SRI KASHINATH PRASAD,
S/O- Late Biswanath Prasad, Hindu by religion,
Business by Occupation, R/O- Nehru Road,
Khalpara, P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling.
O.P. : THE BRANCH MANAGER,
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
142/14, Sevoke Road, 1st Floor, Opposite Pan Card
Office, Beside Raymond Showroom, Siliguri,
P.O & P.s.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin.- 734001.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Sri Subhash Gupta, Advocate.
FOR THE OP : Mr. Chinmoy Chakraborty, Advocate.
FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
Date: 23-02-2021
Facts of the complaint in short:-
The complainant’s case in short is that he is a registered owner of a truck bearing registration no. WB 73C/0461 and it was duly insured with OP i.e. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. at Siliguri having Insurance Policy No. 334029/31/15/000693 which was valid for the period from 15.03.2015 to 14.03.2016. Thereafter said vehicle met with an accident in between Hanuman Jhora and Sathi Jhora on NH-10 under Kalimpong Police station on 01.11.2015 at about 1 am to 2 am. After accident vehicle fall down from the hill road in the Teesta River and sink there. The vehicle was totally damaged and accident case was registered being Kalimpong PS case no. being 337 of 2015 dt. 01.11.2015 under section 279/304A of IPC.
It is further case of the complainant that matter of accident was informed to OP-Insurance Company vide claim No. 10000/31/16/C/0038646 and an amount covered under the policy amounting to Rs. 9,84,000/- was claimed. The OP-Insurance company also appointed an investigator to investigate the damages caused to the vehicle in said accident but the investigator failed to settle the matter and lastly by letter
Contd…..P/2.
-:2:-
dt.31.03.2016, O.P. repudiated the claim of complainant on vague ground, so this complainant is filed before this Forum. Claiming Rs. 9,84,000/- as damages, Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental pain and harassment etc.
The OP contested the claim by filing written version denying claim of the complainant. The main defence of the OP is that the complainant violated the sitting capacity of the vehicle as mentioned in the condition of job policy. As per terms of policy the sitting capacity of the vehicle was for only two persons but violating the condition there were 5 passengers in the vehicle which has been mentioned in the FIR, so the OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant. Further defense of the OPs is that Mr. Sankar Dey submitted a report of the loss who visited the spot and collected report that 5 person were travelling at the time of accident.
Both parties adduced their evidences and filed their respective documents and after hearing both side this Forum dismissed the case on 16.07.2018.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by this Forum the complainant as appellant filed first appeal no. A/13/2018 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Sevoke Road, Siliguri.
Both parties appeared before the Hon’ble State Commission and after hearing and consideration of documents the Hon’ble State Commission pleased to allow the appeal on contest and the judgment and order passed in this consumer case was set aside vide order dt. 08.08.2019.
The Hon’ble State Commission further pleased to pass order that Ld. Forum is asked to hear the argument of the case again in presence of both side to fix and confine the quantum of amount the complainant is entitled there to after obtaining the loss assessment report from the surveyor for the damage of the truck sustained in the accident and also to consider the outer limit of the liability of Insurance Company stipulated in the policy itself.
Now both parties appeared before this Forum and no further report for actual loss assessment from the surveyor has been called for by any parties for the damage of the truck in said accident. The parties have argued only on the point of IDV value as mentioned in the Insurance Policy of the said truck but have accepted the surveyor’s report for damage of the vehicle.
Decision with reasons.
This Commission is bound to go by the decision of the Hon’ble State Commission on the point mentioned in the judgment. In the Insurance policy of the vehicle in question which was valid for the period from 15.03.2015 to 14.03.2016 and policy was
Contd…..P/3.
-:3:-
issued on 14.03.2015 and in the said policy IDV value for the vehicle has been shown as Rs. 9,84,000/- and premium has been paid on said value. As per said Insurance policy the vehicle in question appears to be of the year 2011. In the Insurance policy for limit of liability it has been mentioned that it is in respect of any one accident as per Motor Vehicle Act and second in respect any claim or series of claim arising out of one event is Rs. 7,50,000/-.
The Ld. counsel for OP has argued that claim should be limited to the outer limit as mentioned in the Insurance Policy. Further if I.D.V. value of the vehicle is considered then during insurance period it was for Rs. 9,84,000/-. In the last part of the policy it is mentioned that this policy is subject to exclusion of damages noted down by authorize representative during their inspection.
The Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that when a consumer has paid a premium on depreciated value of the vehicle and insurance company has agreed to accept the said value then OP being Insurance company should pay the IDV value of the vehicle plus interest there on since the pending of this case. On this score it has been argued by Ld. counsel for OP that after mentioning IDV value depreciation for 4 years should be deducted to compare the damage value as mentioned in the policy, but there is no calculation for this amount as argued.
OP has submitted one final surveyor report in respect of the vehicle being dt. 09.03.2016 in which the workshop estimated value of the vehicle has been mentioned as Rs. 13,86,496/- and after considering other factors net damage claim amount has been assessed at Rs. 8,32,793/- and this amount has been showed as insurance company liability and neither party has any objection on it.
On the other hand in the policy Insurer’s liability has been ascertained or fixed for Rs. 7,50,000/- in respect of any claim or series of claims arising out of one event. On this score there appears a difference of amount i.e. Rs. 8,32,793 – Rs. 7,50,000 = Rs. 76,793/-.
It also appears as claimed by complainant that IDV value after depreciation is Rs. 9,84,000/- which is in the month of March, 2015 and thereafter accident has occurred in November, 2015 after eight months and this shows that depreciation amount would be further lower which has not been calculated by any party. Neither party has raised any objection regarding surveyor’s report, where damage value has been mentioned as Rs. 8,32,793/-. The Hon’ble State Commission has directed to confine the quantum of amount after obtaining actual loss assessment report and to consider the outer limit of the liability of insurance company also.
Contd…..P/4.
-:4:-
Now question arises as to which amount should prevail. During argument the Ld. counsel for OP has not raised objection regarding survey report amount and considering the beneficial legislation of the C.P. Act, if outer limit of policy is increased to the damage value of the vehicle then it will be beneficial to the complainant.
Further this cases has been filed in the year 2016 and till date no amount has been paid by the insurer to complainant and for this reason the complainant has to face mental pain and agony and harassment to realize that amount, so he is entitled for the interest on the assessed amount and also compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment with litigation cost.
Hence, it is ordered,
That Consumer Case no. 56 (S) 2016 is allowed on contest in part. The complainant is entitled for damage claim of the vehicle number WB-73C/0461 to the tune of Rs. 8,32,790/- along with an interest @ 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of this Consumer Case till the date of realization.
The O.P. i.e. Shriram General Insurance Company, is hereby directed to pay the above mentioned amount within 45 days from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitle to execute the order as per law.
The complainant is further entitled for an amount of Rs. 40,000/- for his mental pain, agony and harassment and further litigation cost of Rs. 15,000/- from the OP - Shriram General Insurance Company at Sevoke Road, Siliguri. The O.P is directed further to pay these amounts of Rs. 55,000/= within 45 days from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled for an interest @ 10% per annum thereafter till the date of realisation and failure to pay the complainant shall be entitled to execute the order as per law.
Let a copy of this judgment/final order be provided to the contesting parties free of cost.
