Tripura

West Tripura

CC/47/2015

Sri Gopal Debnath. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Mr.S.Bhattacharjee.

18 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC-   47  of   2015

    Sri Gopal Debnath,
S/O- Lt. Ram Mani Debnath,
Durgabari, P.O.- Tebaria,
Bamutia, West Tripura.            ..........Complainant.
    
             ___VERSUS___
             
The Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Kaman Chowmuhani,
Agartala, West Tripura.            .........Opposite parties.
    

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant        :  Sri Surajit Bhattacharjee,
                      Advocate.

For the Opposite Parties        :  Sri Partha Sarathi Chakraborty,
                      Advocates.                                           
          

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  18.03.2016

J U D G M E N T

        This is case arises on the petition filed by Gopal Debnath U/S 12 of the C.P. Act. Petitioners case in short is that he purchased one vehicle with insurance coverage. The Vehicle TR01 B 1361 met accident during policy coverage period. The vehicle was  damaged and for repairing he spent amount of Rs.6 lakhs. Petitioner claimed the amount. Insurance Company paid Rs.2,76,000/- only. Rs.3,63,800/- was not paid. So, this petition filed.

2.        O.P. appeared & filed W.S., denying the claim. He stated that as per survey report, petitioner is entitled to get Rs.3,02,072/- and settled the claim for Rs.2,76,200/-. Petitioner also accepted it without any objection and again making the claim unauthorizedly which he is not entitled to get.

3.        On the basis of contention raised following points cropped up for determination.
        (I) What was the actual repairing charge of the vehicle?
        (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the amount as claimed?

4.        The claimant petitioner side produced discharge vouchers, assessment sheet, survey report, statement on affidavit of one witness i.e., claimant petitioner.

5.        O.P. on the other hand produced the statement on affidavit of Dulal Das, Administrative Officer.

6.        We have gone through the evidence as given by both the parties and also heard argument.

7.        The Administrative Officer, Dulal Das stated that after accident 3 times survey was done for the damaged vehicle. One time is before the dismantling another after dismantling. Surveyor reported that complainant is entitled to get Rs. 3,02,072/- and he submitted the report. On that report Rs.2,76,000/- is paid to the satisfaction of the petitioner. We have gone through the survey report and the vouchers as produced. In the assessment sheet less depreciation shown 50%. Cost of rubber, plastic, glass item separately shown. For metallic item and labour charge also shown. Cost of painting not allowed. One Aswini Sarma, loss assessor made assessment also. We have gone through that report also. And the amount insured was Rs.11,95,000/-. Nothing assessed as labour charge. For spare parts Rs.6,972/- was given. But the vouchers as produced support that many spare parts were purchased. Those were not taken into consideration. In the assessment of loss of metallic item, rubber item, glass item  all these are shown but while deciding the amount depreciation was made for 50% which is not proper. As there was insurance coverage up to 11 lakhs we consider that O.P. Insurance company could assess the damage  without depreciation and also take into consideration labour charge and pay Rs.6 lakhs instead of Rs.2,76,000/-. O.P. failed to do so. This is deficiency of service. We therefore, hold that there was deficiency of service by O.P. Less payment was given without proper assessment. Both the points are decided accordingly.

8.        In view of our above findings over the 2 points this petitioner is allowed. We direct the Opposite party Insurance company to pay total Rs.6 lakhs as compensation out of which  Rs.2,72,000/- already paid. So, Insurance is required to pay the rest amount i.e., Rs.3,28,000/- to petitioner. O.P. is to pay Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand) for deficiency of service and Rs.5000/- for cost of litigation. O.P. is to pay Rs. 3,43,000/-(Three lac forty three thousand) in total to the petitioner. If the amount is not paid within 2 months it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.     
               
9.                       Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 
SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,  AGARTALA, 
WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,  AGARTALA,
 WEST TRIPURA.