West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/145/2017

Smt. Bulu Bose - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Samaresh Khan

27 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                                                                                               

    Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

     Pulak Kumar Singha, Member. 

and 

Sagarika Sarkar, Member. 

Complaint Case No.145/2017

           

.                                           Smt.Bulu Bose, Indira Lane, Shekpurea,  P.S. Kotwali,                                                                                        

                                                   Midnapore-721101, Dist-Paschim Medinipur

                                                                                               ………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

                                          The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd.,                                     

                                          Station Road,  Midnapore-721101, Dist-Paschim Medinipur.

                                                                                .....……….….Opp. Party.                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr. Samaresh Khan, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Chowdhury, Advocate.

                                                          

                                                           Date of filling:-  07/09/2017

  Decided on : -    27/04/2018

                               

ORDER

                          Pulak Kumar Singha, Member-In short the case of the complainant is that complainant is a owner of one Innova Car bearing No.WB-34/AN-6667 and said vehicle met with an accident on 08.12.2016 for which said car was damaged. The car in question was validly insured with the O.P. complainant placed his damaged car at SAINI TOYOTA at Howrah for repairing. The matter of accident was intimated to the O.P. and O.P’s surveyor inspected the damaged car and after repairing the car surveyor or assessed the repairing cost of damaged vehicle and as per assessment O.P. sent pre-receipt voucher of Rs.54,235/- to the complainant for payment but complainant refused to accept said amount as she had already paid Rs.75,500/-to the repairing centre. O.P. did not consider

                                                                                                 Contd……………………P/2

 

 

                                                                                  ( 2 )

the claim of complainant. Complainant approached before this Forum for getting redressal as per prayer of his complaint petition.

                     O.P. contested the case by filing Written Objection denying the allegations of complainant, stating inter alia that there is no special endorsement as nil depreciation in the Insurance Policy on the relevant period. Survey or assessed net loss including labour charges Rs.52,849/-, O.P. already intimated the complainant to accept the such amount but complainant refused to accept the same. This O.P. has no deficiency in service and this O.P. pray for dismissal of the case.

                                                  Decision with Reasons

                   We carefully perused the complaint, written objection, evidence and documents. Fact of the case is that complainant’s vehicle bearing No.WB-34/AN-6667 was validly insured with the O.P. and during validity of insurance period said car met with an accident for which the vehicle got damaged. Complainant placed his damaged car in a repairing centre at Howrah and O.Ps. investigator assessed loss and prepared report. After repairing the car said repairing centre prepared a bill of Rs.75,550/- for repairing including labour charges but O.Ps. investigator assessed repairing cost Rs.52,849/- and O.P. sent a pre-receipt voucher of Rs.54,235/- for payment to the complainant but complainant refused to accept it, as she paid Rs.75,500/- to the repairing centre as cost of repairing  of the damaged car.

                     To prove her case complainant adduced evidence by filing examination-in-chief with affidavit and tendered herself as P.W.1 and submitted some documents which are marked as (exhibit 1 to 4). P.W.1 also cross-examined by O.P. One Assistant Manager of said repairing centre also adduced evidence as P.W.2 on behalf of complainant and said witness also cross-examined by O.P. O.P. also adduced evidence by one investigator on their behalf who produced investigation report, which is marked as (exhibit-A collectively). Said witness also cross-examined by complainant.

                    In the instant case from the evidence and documents we find that all fact of the case are admitted but dispute arise in respect of payment of compensation. Repairing centre received Rs.75,550/- from complainant as cost of repairing the damaged car which documents are marked as (exibit-5 to 8), but O.P. sent a pre-receipt voucher of Rs.54.235/- for payment to the complainant who refused to accept the same rather complainant by sending protesting letter and demanded actual cost of repairing (which she has already paid) from O.P. and said letters are marked(exhibit 2 to 2/2) respectively. But O.P. did not reply of said letters or sent any clarification why they are unable to pay Rs.75,500/- which has received by the SAINI TOYOTA i.e. repairing centre from complainant.

                                                                                              Contd……………………P/3

 

                                                                                ( 3 )

                  From (exhibit-5 and 6) it reveals that concerned repairing centre labour charges assessed Rs.45,137/- out of total charges Rs.71,963/- and others are paid as service tax, vat etc. Whereas O.P’s. investigator assessed labour charges Rs.32,649/- though as per estimate labour charges shown Rs.52,471/- in his Final Motor Survey Report(exibit A collectively). We find from the (exibit-5 to 8) that out of total cost of repairing charges Rs.75,500/- actual charges assessed Rs.64,998/- and rest amount paid for the purpose of service tax and vat etc. O.P. sent pre-receipt voucher of Rs.54,235/- to the complainant and dispute arises for the difference of said amount by the parties.

                   It is fact that in any case of damage repair at the time of dismantling and repairing some other portion also make necessary for the purpose of repair for such labour cost may be excess besides the charge assessed by the investigator and investigator admits in his evidence that the car was extensively damaged. Labour charges difference shown both sides only Rs.13,000/- Approx. Moreover investigator of O.P. deducted Rs.2,886.40 as nil depreciation of the policy but we find from the policy(exibit-1)premium schedule that O.P. received premium of Rs.3,742/- as nil depreciation. O.Ps. investigator deducted Rs.2,886.40 in the account of nil depreciation from the total cost of repairing charges which is not proper. When a party paid nil depreciation premium in the policy and if any claim lodged then nothing will be depreciated at the time of assessment.

                     In view of the above circumstance we find complainant proved his case. On the other hand O.P. has negligent and deficient in service for which the complainant suffers mental pain, harassment and also monetary loss as such complainant is entitled to get an order in her favour.

                     Thus complaint case succeeds.

                                        Hence, it is,

                                                          Ordered.

                                                            that the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against O.P. with cost. O.P.is directed to pay Rs.67,000/-(Repairing Cost) to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental  pain, harassment and monetary loss and to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of order.

                       Failure to comply the order O.P. shall be liable to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as penal cost to be paid to the Legal Aid Account of this Forum till realization.

                       Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.                                                                                                                                                                                       

             Dictated and Corrected by me

                         Sd/-P.K. Singha                                Sd/- S. Sarkar                          Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                               Member                                          Member                                     President

                                                                                                                                    District Forum

                                                                                                                                 Paschim Medinipur