Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/109

Sri Anjan Saha. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.R.Datta, Mr.R.Das.

01 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC-  109 of 2014

        Anjan Saha,
         S/O- Lt. Ashutosh Saha,
         colonel Chowmuhani,
         Krishnanagar, Agartala, 
         West Tripura.            …...........Complainant.
    

             ______VERSUS______

             The Divisional Manager,
             The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
             Agartala Divisional Office,
             Mantri Bari Road, 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 Ratan Datta and
                      Sri Rupak Das,                  
                       Advocates.
    
For the Opposite Parties        : Sri G. S. Das and
                      Sri Kushal Deb, 
                       Advocates.    
          
                               

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  01.02.16

 

J U D G M E N T

        This case was filed  by Anjan Saha u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is alleged that on 27.04.12 the vehicle bearing No- TR 01 U 0413  met accident near Gungraibari. The vehicle felled up and damaged. Petitioner informed the O.P. Insurance company as the vehicle insured for the period from 30.07.11 to 30.07.12. The complainant placed the vehicle at Progressive Motors who supplied the estimate of Rs.3,56,253/- for repairing the vehicle. Such estimate was placed before the O.P. Insurance company. But the Insurance Company did not pay the amount for repairing. Several correspondence made but nothing done for payment of repairing. So, this case filed claiming compensation of Rs.6 lakhs. 

Opposite party Insurance Company appeared, filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that case was earlier dismissed for default and this case not maintainable.

3.        On the basis of rival contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination.
        (I)  Whether the petition is maintainable?
        (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the compensation for the damage of insured vehicle?

4.        Claimant petitioner side produced the Original Insurance Certificate, Repudiate letter, Photocopy of police report dated 14.09.12 marked Exhibit- 1 and 2. Also produced the statement on affidavit of one witness, Anjan Saha. 

5.        O.P. New India Assurance Company Ltd. on the other hand produced G.D. Entry (Annexure-A), Police report (Annexure-E), complainant's letters(Annexure-C), police report(Annexure-G), marked as  Exhibited -A, B, C and D. Surveyor appointment letter, Motors Survey Report (Final), Other letters addressed to the Divisional Manager/ Chief Regional Manager, Letter by the Deputy Manager repudiating the claim, Letters given by the petitioner, correspondence & rejection of claim letter and other letters as Annexure- B, D, F, H and I.

        On the basis of evidence on record  we shall now determine the above points.

7.     FINDINGS AND DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

        It is true that the case was earlier dismissed for default. No decision was taken on merit. As per decision of the Supreme Court AIR 2000, 914 when the case not decided on merit and dismissed for default for non appearance it is permissible to file second complaint. So, the second complaint on the same subject matter is not barred and maintainable. Another contention that the vehicle was not used for private use so the petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation. In support of it no evidence given and we can not come to conclusion that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose though license was given for private use under private car package policy. Violation of terms and condition in Private Car Policy is not established in this case. We have gone through the report of the O/C (photocopy ) G.D. Entry, full investigation report not available. After enquiry it is found that the aforesaid fact is true and examined the available witness. So the fact of accident comes out from the police report also. But the Insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground of police report. The contrary in the other police report to falsify the accident fact not established. Exhibit- A, F.I.R. supports this fact. As per the policy certificate (Exhibit1), the policy covered from 31.07.11 to 30.07.12 and accident occurred on 27.04.12 i.e., within the policy coverage period. Limits of liability is Rs.7,50,000/-. It is true that accident occurred in 2012. Time taken for settlement of claim and in 12.12.14 the claim petition filed so it is not barred by limitation as the final report of repudiation was issued on 12.12.12 by Senior Divisional Manager. In the rejection of claim letter it is found that on the basis of second police report authority did not consider to review the first report of repudiated claim. What is the second report of the police not projected before us. From the policy condition of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Annexure B, it is found that final survey report is to be submitted within 7 day in motor survey in one month and other case of motor survey from the date of appointment. Request letter was made to Mr. B. Debbarma by the company to carry out the survey. B. Debbarma surveyed  and submitted report. As per that report the damage of the vehicle was calculated to 2,04,929/-. From the letter issued to Chief Regional Manager by the Divisional Manager it is found that Rs. 2,04, 929/- was assessed but the amount was beyond their due limit. So they recommended  Rs.1,53,697/-. But amount also not paid. One official reported that overturn was not covered so claim is to be repudiated. Police report discloses overturning in the work site so claim was not entertained. This is totally a wrong concept. The policy certificate did not mention any such thing for repudiation of the claim. After scrutinizing the evidence as given by the petitioner and opposite party it is clear that the policy covered the damage of the vehicle and within the period of policy certificate damage was caused. Petitioner therefore, is entitled to get the amount as assessed by the surveyor i.e., Rs.2,04,929/-. The vehicle was repaired without knowledge. So, 15% was deducted this is not proper. The amount considered is to be paid for repairing. The Insurance company made inordinate delay in paying the amount and caused much harassment to the petitioner on interpretation of police report this is deficiency of service on this basis petitioner is entitled to get Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of service & cost of litigation. Thus in total petitioner is entitled to get Rs.2,54,929/-(Rupees Two lakhs fifty four thousand nine hundred twenty nine). We therefore direct the O.P. New India Assurance Company to pay this amount to the petitioner, if not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.       
       
8.                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.    0SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.