The instant case arose over non-settlement of complainant’s insurance claim by the OPs. The complainant states that he is a policy holder under the OPs being Policy No. 150305/31/09/630000258 which was valid from 30-06-2009 to 29-06-2010. The complainant further states that he submitted a Motor insurance claim in respect of his vehicle no. WB-29/8605 for repairing of the same which got damaged due to motor accident, but the OPs neglected to settle his legitimate claim and his repeated reminder letters, personal visits as well as lawyer’s notice failed to evoke any positive result and hence the instant case.
In support of his contention, the complainant filed several documents viz Policy Certificate, Lawyer’s notice dt. 15-06-2011 and 15-11-2011, letter of OP no. 2 dt. 20-06-2011, repairing bills etc.
The OPs contested the case truly by filing WV, WNA and they also took a positive part in the entire proceeding to defend themselves. It is stated by the OPs that the complainant lodged an insurance claim for a sum of Rs. 4,49,750/- on 28-09-2009. Accordingly, they engaged their surveyors to enquire into the matter and during the course of investigation the said surveyors detected several inconsistencies in the claim of the complainant which the complainant failed to properly explain. However, on the basis of the reports of their surveyors and believable documents they offered Rs. 1,06,925/- and sent pre-acceptance voucher to the complainant, which the complainant has still not submitted duly signed. Denying any laches on their part, the OPs prayed for summary dismissal of the instant case.
The OPs submitted Reports of two Surveyors, letters issued by the Surveyors to different motor parts shops for verifying the authenticity of the bills alleged to had been issued by them and their replies to the OP insurance company and also some bills etc.
On the basis of above claims and written version, we are to decide whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as sought for.
Decisions with reasons
We have gone through the entire materials on record including the documents filed on record by the parties as also the WNA on record, considered the submission of ld. Advocate of both sides.
There is no dispute about the existence of policy no. 150305/31/09/630000258 having coverage period from 30-06-2009 to 29-06-2010 of which the claimant is a policy holder in respect of his vehicle being no. WB-29/8605.
It is also admitted position that the said vehicle met an accident within the coverage period of insurance policy and that the damaged portion of the said vehicle was repaired by the complainant within the knowledge of the OP.
It appears from the letter of the complainant dt. 07-07-2010 filed by the OP that - (1) initially the OPs appointed one Mr. Manas Kumar Chakraborty for spot survey. (2) Thereafter, final survey was done by one Mr. Goutam Basu. It transpires from the said letter of the complainant that he agreed with the assessment of Mr. Basu. (3) After that Surveyor namely Mr. Saibal Sarkar was appointed by the OP no. 2 and he re-inspected the repaired vehicle in question. It is also evident from the said letter of the complainant that Sri Sarkar verified the genuineness of the bills regarding sale of spare parts after visiting the office of M/s Tracto Traders at their newly shifted place. It further appears from the said letter that the complainant submitted the VAT & CST Registration Certificates of said dealer as well as rent receipt to substantiate his claim. Notably the OPs have not disputed the authenticity of the said VAT & CST Registration certificates.
It is also observed from the record that the OPs appointed two more Surveyors to confirm the authenticity of the bills/vouchers submitted by the complainant.
It is indeed curious to note that though the OPs appointed 5 surveyors, no explanation has been given as to why so many surveyors were appointed. There is no denying the fact that the Surveyor Report containing details of the findings of spot survey as well as subsequent findings of the surveyor as regards replacement/repairing of spare parts are of paramount importance. However, for some obscure reasons the OPs have not submitted the Reports of first three Surveyors viz Mr. Manas Kumar Chakraborty, Mr. Goutam Basu and Mr. Saibal Sarkar.
From the report of M/s A.K.Sinha & Associates dt. 17-07-2010 and 20-08-2010 and Mr. Subrata Ghosh dt. 09-08-2010 that both of them left no stone unturned to locate the spare parts dealers by personally visiting the spots first and also by sending letters to those dealers.
It transpires from the report of M/s A.K.Sinha & Associates dt. 17-07-2010 that they admitted the vouchers of M/s Azad Auto Sales as genuine.
The letter dtd. 09.08.2010 of Mr. Subrata Ghosh, Surveyor addressed to the Divisional Manager of the OP goes to show that the said Tracto Trader shifted their establishment at 57/6, B.T. Road in the month of May 2010, but they have their godown and sales depot at the same address. Mr. S. Ghosh visited the said premises on 21.07.2010 in the evening and came to know from one Sri Manoj Gupta that the proprietor Mr. Ashok Kr. Sarkar of the said trader was out of station, that Mr. Ghosh again visited the said premises on 07.08.2010 but they could not produce the documents although there is no note that the materials were not purchased by the complainant from them. Another letter dtd. 09.08.2010 of Mr. Ghosh speaks that he was informed by Trading Centre that the items as per Bill dtd. 07.01.2010 were sold to the complainant and all relevant documents were kept with Mr. Manoj Gupta’s office and after that they were unable to produce the duplicate copy of the said bill.
It is found from the above discussion and materials on record that the said Surveyor came to know from those sellers that they sold spare parts of the vehicle to the complainant. In our considered view, mere non production of duplicate copy by those sellers can not be a cogent ground for non-acceptance of the said Bill filed by the complainant in view of the fact that there is no proof on the part of the OP that the said Bills were not genuine though fact remains as to the existence of the shop, proprietors of the said traders and admission for selling of the parts to the complainant by them. It was contended by the complainant that the Surveyor accepted the Bills and filed his report but that report has not been produced before this Forum by the OPs without any explanation. From the letters dtd. 17.07.2010 and 20.08.2010 of M/s A.K. Sinha & Associates addressed to the National Insurance Co. Ltd., Haldia division, P.O. – Durgachak, Haldia, on record filed by the OP that M/s Tractor Traders shifted their shop to 57/6 B.T. Road, Kolkata – 700 002 from 38, Nayan Chandra Dutta Street, Kolkata – 700 006 and that the matter of issuance of invoice by M/s Tractor Traders had been verified from said address by Mr. Saibal Sarkar (earlier Surveyor) who submitted his report in this regard.
Therefore, we find no reason for non-reimbursement of the bills viz M/s Tracto Traders for Rs. 87,552/-, M/s Raunak Trade Center for Rs. 1,09,200/- and M/s Azad Auto Sales for Rs. 36,920/- being filed by the complainant. Besides, the OP has not raised any objection as regards the bills of M/s Samanta Automobile for Rs. 18,640/- and M/s Leyland Syndicate for Rs. 54,142/- (Rs. 15,761 + 14,357+ 24,024). Therefore, the complainant is also entitled to get reimbursement of the same. The complainant also submitted photocopies of Estimate dt. 04-10-2009 issued by M/s Biswakarma Body Builders and Garage rent contract dt. 01-11-2010 issued by M/s Biswakarma Body Builders. However, the complainant has not submitted any money receipt in this respect. Therefore, we are not taking this into consideration.
It is not understood why it required the OPs to appoint 5 surveyors to investigate the matter and why the reports of first 3 surveyors have not been produced on record by them. The conduct of the OPs clearly goes to show that they acted in a whimsical manner which tantamount to deficiency in service.
In the light of our foregoing discussion we hold that the complainant is entitled to get reimbursement of expenditure on account of repairing of the vehicle to the tune of Rs. 3,06,454/- (18,640+87,552+ 1,09,200+36,920+ 15,761 +14,357+24,024) along with compensation Rs. 20,000/- and litigation cost Rs. 3,000/-
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the instant CC case no. 14/2011 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs. The OPs are directed to settle the insurance claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 3,06,454/- together with compensation Rs. 20,000/- and litigation cost Rs. 3,000/- within 45 days from the date of communication of this order i.d. the complainant is at liberty to execute the order in accordance with law in which the OPs will be liable to pay fine @ 8% p.a. over the total awarded amount from the date of this order till full and final settlement.
Dictated and corrected
by me
President
__________________
A.K. Bhattacharyya
President
_________________
S. S. Ali
Member
