FINAL ORDER
Sankar Kumar Ghosh, President.
This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant.
In a pith and marrow the complainant’s case is that he is the owner of a bus being registration No.WB 15A-7120 and he is plying the said bus from Chinsurah to Kalnaroute and this bus is his only source of income to livelihood and he maintains his family members. The complainant insured his bus with the United India Insurance Company Ltd. from Chinsurah branch office being policy No.0307043116P04905076 and its validity period was at the relevant time from16.7.2016 to 15.7.2017.
That during the policy period the said bus met with an accident on 4.5.2017 at Jirat Bus Stand. The complainant informed the matter of accident to the opposite party on 5.5.2017. Thereafter the complainant repaired the said bus after taking permission from the surveyor of the opposite party and after repairing the bus the complainant sent claim form along with all papers relating to the claim on 16.2.2018 and requested to settle the matter but opposite party did not pay heed to it.
Thereafter the complainant sent another letter on 12.3.2018 to the opposite party and on 5.4.2018 the complainant sent demand notice through his advocate but opposite party deliberately avoided the claim of the complainant.
Finding no other alternative, the complainant has compelled to file this case before this Forum and prayed directions upon the opposite party to provide total claim amount of Rs.1,34,000/- as per norm of the policy to the complainant and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards harassment and alsoto pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
The opposite party contested the case by filing written version denying all the material allegations as levelled against him. This opposite party states that as soon as the petitioner intimated about the damage of his vehicle in the accident a competent licensed surveyor namely Span Kapoor was appointed to do the survey work and the said surveyor after completion of the survey work, taking the depreciation in consideration and deducting the policy excess assessed the loss at Rs.30,575/-. The owner of the vehicle or in other words the insured is never entitled to get the entire value spent for repair of the damaged vehicle and he is entitled to the value of loss as assessed by the surveyor but even if the surveyor assessed any loss, the insured is not entitled to the same if the same is not within the scope of the policy. After receiving the survey report from the surveyor this opposite party vide letter dated 8.5.2018 sent the settlement intimation voucher of Rs.30,575/- as assessed by the surveyor to the petitioner under registered post and he was requested to sign and return the same as early as possible. So, it is clear that the opposite party tried to settle the claim at same amount as assessed by the surveyor but the petitioner did not receive the same on the pleas of demand of higher amount which is not he is entitled to. Thus, this opposite party has prayed before this Forum to dismiss the instant complaint of the complainant.
Upon the above pleadings following points have been framed for determination.
- Whether the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case?
- Whether petitioner is entitled to have the amount as claimed for ?
- To what other relief, if any is the petitioner entitled?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1
From the materials on record it transpires that the complainant is “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As the opposite party in his written version has admitted that complainant at the material point of time was covered under a policy of insurance issued by opposite party. Therefore, it can be said that complainant is none but the consumer under the opposite party.
Point No.2
Complainant is the residentDistrict Hooghly. Similarly address of the opposite party is at Chinsurah, District-Hooghly and from that branch opposite party is doing/carrying on business, though may be the head office of opposite party may be situated elsewhere, but that does not debar the jurisdiction of this Forum. Considering the pros and cons of the materials on record and the attending facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the view that this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdictionto entertain and try this case.
Point No.3 & 4:
These two points are taken up together for determination as they are interlinked with each other.
In short, complainant’s main grievance is that he has incurred a considerable amount more than Rs.30,575/- as assessed on behalf of the opposite party towards compensation of insurance and he has incurred such considerable amount towards repair of the bus in question after obtaining permission from the surveyor of the opposite party and as such complainant ventilated that he is entitled to have the amount as compensation as depicted in the prayer of the petition of complaint.
On the other hand opposite party mainly stated that though it is true that the interest of the owner (complainant) in the bus in question was insured under a policy as issued by the opposite party, but opposite party after engaging a licensed independent surveyor ‘Span Kapoor’ to do the survey work and the surveyor assessed the loss of Rs.30,575/- ands according to opposite party complainant is entitled to have that amount only.
Now, it may be stated that in support of permission alleged to have been taken by the complainant from the concerned surveyor no paper whatsoever is forthcoming before this Forum nor there is any cogent or positive evidence on record which can inspire this Forum to say something positive in this regard in favour of the complainant. Naturally this Forum has no scope at all to draw any inference that complainant took permission from the concerned surveyor of opposite party. In such a situation this Forum is not appreciating the amount as claimed for in the complaint petition by the complainant. Though complainant filed photocopies of some documents in support of his expenses towards repairing of the said bus in question.
In view of the above discussion this Forum is harboring to the conclusion that complainant is entitled to have the amount of Rs. 30,575/- and that apart complainant will get Rs.10,000/- towards harassment and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complainant case being No.69/2016 be and the same is decreed on contest against the opposite party.
Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.30,575/- towards the repairing of the bus in question to the complainant.
Opposite party is also directed to provide Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards harassment and litigation cost respectively.The opposite party is further directed to comply all the directions within 45 days from this date of order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the case.
Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
