Date of filing: 26.9.2016 Date of disposal: 23.10.2017
Complainant: Kumar Vaibhav, S/o. Promod Prasad, resident of Kalyani Tower, Gopalpur (near Asansol FCI Godown), Upper Chelidanga, Dist: Burdwan,
Opposite Party: 1. The Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., (Asansol Branch), Kanchan Laxmi Complex (Above UCO Bank), Opposite of Bazar Kolkata, PO: Asansol, PS: Asansol (South), District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 303.
2. The Director, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., E-8, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan, PIN – 302 022.
Present:
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Nivedita Ghosh.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1&2: Ld. Advocate, Saurav Kumar Mitra (ex parte).
J U D G M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act., 1986 alleging deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice against the Ops as the Ops have settled his legitimate insurance claim at the lower level.
The fact of the case of the complainant is that he is a registered owner of a vehicle being Model: Tata 407/31 Truck, Class: Light Goods Vehicle, Year of manufacture: 2013, Registration No. WB 37C/6287, engine No. 497SP67AWY600421 and Chasis No. MAT455030D8A00329 and the said vehicle was insured with the OP-2 through OP-1 being policy No. 10012/31/16/031695 and was valid from 17.02.2016 to midnight 16.02.2017. As per insurance policy the said vehicle was valued at Rs. 5, 10,000=00 and the complainant paid Rs. 22,873=00 to the OP-1 towards insurance premium. All on a sudden the said vehicle met with an accident on 14.4.2016 at about 7.00 am at Fagupur, Nababhat, Burdwan and badly damaged due to that accident. The complainant informed the said incident to the OP-1 on the very same date and the OP-1 lodged the said claim as claim No. 10000/31/17/C/002711. On 14.4.2016 as per advice of the OP-1 the complainant took the said vehicle to the Gati Motors Pvt. Ltd. At Fagupur NH-2, Burdwan for necessary repairing and the said vehicle got repaired at Gati Motors on 15.7.2016 and the total repairing cost of Rs. 2, 74,617=00 was paid by the complainant by cash on 29.4.2016 and 14.7.2016. On 04.5.2016 the OP-1 sent a letter to the complainant and asked for some documents, which were finally submitted by complainant on 15.7.2016 for settlement of the claim. Therefore, the complainant became surprised to receive a letter from OP-1 dated 18.7.2016 whereby the OP-1 informed the complainant that the said claim will be settled for Rs. 1,49,012=00 instead of claim of Rs. 2 ,74,617=00. After receiving such letter the complainant rushed to the office o the OP-1 and asked the reason for such kind of settlement letter, but they failed to give any reasonable answer. Thereafter, the complainant went several times to the office of the OP-1 and prayed for his legitimate claim, but all efforts are in vein and yielded no result. Having no other option the complainant sent a legal notice through his Advocate to the OP-1&2 on 05.8.2016 but no reply was received by the complainant till date. As the complainant is a bonafide purchaser of insurance policy of the said vehicle with the OP-1&2 and the vehicle got accident within the validity of the insurance policy, so the OP-1&2 are liable to pay the legitimate insurance claim. The actions of the Ops come within the meaning of deficiency in service and restrictive trade practice of the Act. Finding no other alternative the complainant has compelled to come before the court of law with a prayer for directing the OP-1&2 to settle the legitimate claim of the complainant by paying Rs. 2, 75,617=00 with 12% interest up to the date of final order, to pay compensation Rs. 1, 00,000=00 for mental agony and pain and to pay Rs. 30,000=00 as the cost of litigation.
After admission hearing the case was admitted and notices were issued to the Op-1&2. It is found from the case record vide Order No. 4, dated 17.11.2016 that the OP-1&2 appeared with vokalatnama and prayed time for filing written version and the date was fixed on 16.12.2016 for filing written version. On 16.12.2016 the Ops again prayed time for filing written version and prayer was allowed and 02.01.2017 was fixed for filing written version. 02.01.2017 the Ops again prayed time for filing written version. But as the statutory period for filing written version had already been expired, so the prayer was rejected and the case was fixed for ex parte hearing against the OP-1&2 and the date was fixed on 24.01.2017 for ex parte hearing. On 24.01.2017 the OP-1&2 filed two separate petitions along with written version supported by affidavit praying to take off the case and to accept the written version. But as the case has already been fixed for ex parte hearing, so at this stage this petition was rejected and the written filed on behalf of the OP-1&2 not accepted. So we cannot take cognizance of the written version filed by the OP-1&2 at the time of final order. Accordingly, the matter was heard ex parte from the ld. Lawyer of the complainant.
Point for consideration:
- Whether complainant able is entitled to get a decree as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
To prove his allegation against the OP-1&2 the petitioner/complainant himself adduced evidence as PW1, where he stated that he purchased Tata 407/31 Truck, Class: Light Goods Vehicle, Year of manufacture: 2013, Registration No. WB 37C/6287, engine No. 497SP67AWY600421 and Chasis No. MAT455030D8A00329 from OP-1 and the policy No. 10012/31/16/031695 and was valid from 17.02.2016 to midnight 16.02.2017and as per insurance policy the vehicle was valid at Rs. 5,10,000=00 and the complainant paid Rs. 22,873=00 to the OP-1 as insurance premium.
The complainant also stated that the vehicle got an accident on 14.4.2016 at Fagupur, Nababhat, Burdwan and for the said accident vehicle was badly damaged and he informed the said incident to the OP-1 on the same day and as per advice of OP-1, he took the vehicle to the Gati Motors Pvt. Ltd. at Fagupur, Nababhat, Burdwan for repair and said vehicle was got repaired against total repairing cost of Rs. 2,74,617=00 and complainant also paid the said repairing cost on 29.4.2016 and on 14.7.2016 to Gati Motors Pvt. Ltd.
The complainant also stated that as per information of accident on 14.4.2016, OP-1 has already lodged claim case (Claim No. 10000/31/17/C/002711).
The complainant further stated that the OP-1 also asked him through letter dated 04.5.2016 for documents for repairing cost of the vehicle and the complainant also submitted all the documents on 15.7.2016 for settlement of the claim and thereafter came to know from the OP-1 through letter dated 18.7.2016 that OP-1 agreed to settle the claim for Rs. 1, 49,012=00 instead of Rs. 2, 74,617=00.
The complainant also stated that he went to the office of OP-1 on several times for clarification regarding settlement amount and the OP-1 failed to give any reasonable answer as to why he settled the amount for Rs. 1, 49,012=00 instead of Rs. 2, 74,617=00 as repairing charge and also stated that he sent a legal notice to OP-1 and OP-2 through ld. Lawyer but received no reply from them. The complainant also stated that he is a bonafide consumer of the OP-2 through OP-1 within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the C.P. Act.
Now it appears that OP-1&2 both have not denied the allegation of the complainant and as such they are not interested to prceed the case and for that they have filed their written version after statutory period is over and Forum refused to accept the said written version on that ground and ultimately heard as ex parte.
It is clear from the petition and also from the evidence of complainant that he is bonafide consumer and accident took place within valid period (policy of the vehicle valid from 17.02.2016 up to midnight 16.02.2017) that is on 14.4.2016. The complainant also produced Xerox copies of documents to show that he paid total repairing cost amount of Gati Motors and informed the said amount to OP-1 for settlement and instead of sanction the whole amount, OP-1&2 both have kept them mum, rather they allowed the complainant for ex parte hearing and at the time of ex parte hearing only filed a petition stating that they will file an appeal before the Hon’ble SCDRC, WB without filed any appeal and again on 29.8.2017 when case was fixed for argument then filed petition on the ground that talk of compromise was going on between the parties and ultimately on 13.9.2017 filed a petition stating that OP-1 & 2 have filed a Revision Petition before the Hon’ble SCDRC, WB without mentioning the number, so the conduct of both opposite parties show that their intention is nothing but only to harass the complainant and for that they have filed such type of vague petition.
So, in considering the evidence as well as case record it is clear that the complainant is able to prove his allegation against both Opposite Parties by documents and it is also clear from the conduct of opposite parties that they have nothing to say against the claim of the complainant and for that failed to proceed the case, rather it appears that OP-1&2 tried their level best to misguide the Forum by filing some vague petition knowing fully well that they are not permitted to file such type of meaningless petition as per provisions of law.
Accordingly the issue disposed of in favour of the complainant and the complainant is entitled to get a decree.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the present claim application be and the same is decreed ex parte against the OP-1& 2.
The complainant is entitled to get entire amount which he paid as repairing cost of the vehicle from the Opposite Parties through OP-1, i.e. Rs. 2,74,617=00 and also entitled to get Rs. 50,000=00 as mental agony and pain and harassment and Rs. 5,000=00 as litigation cost.
Opposite Parties are hereby directed to pay actual amount which the complainant paid as repairing cost to the complainant within three months from the date of this order without fail along with litigation cost as well as cost for mental agony and pain, failing which complainant is permitted to put the entire award in execution before proper authority according to law.
Copy of this order be supplied to the complainant with free of cost and also to the Opposite Parties for their knowledge and proper action as per provision of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me:
(Nivedita Ghosh)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) (Nivedita Ghosh)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
Order No.17.
23.10.2017
O.P., Shriram General Insurance Com. Ltd. applied for certified copy of the judgement today which is passed by this Forum on 25.9.2017 and draws attention of this Forum stating the fact that there is a typographical mistake in the ordering portion of the judgement regarding the amount of compensation awarded in this case which is pronounced as Rs.50,000/- in open Ejlash but it is shown in the judgment as Rs.50,00,000/- due to typographical mistake in the ordering portion of the judgement.
Perused the judgement. Heard Ld. Lawyer of the O.P. As it is a typographical mistake let the said typographical mistake is corrected/removed immediately. Let the judgement be passed after correction.
(Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha) Jayanti Maitra(Ray)
Member President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
