IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/183/2018
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
28.11.2018 10.12.2018 18.01.2024
Complainant: Tania Sultana
D/o- Turabuddin Seikh,
R/at Vill & P.O.- Dadpur,
P.S.- Rejinagar
Dist- Murhsidabad
Pin-742189
-Vs-
Opposite Party1.Divisional Manager,
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
37 A, R.N.Tagore Road (1st Floor), P.O. & P.S.-Berhampore, Dist- Murshidabad,
Pin-742101, West Bengal
2. The Manager, Bidyut Autotech Pvt. Ltd.
Rernault Berhampore,
Of Gopegram, NH-34, P.O.- Rainda, P.S.- Nabagram,
Dist- Murshidabad, Pin-742187,
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Rajdip goswami
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties : Subhanjan Sengupta
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.
Sri. Nityananda Roy…………………………………….Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri. ajay kumar das, presiding member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Tania Sultana (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr. (here in after referred to as the O.P.s) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant is the owner of Private Car Renault/KWID being registration No. WB58-AR0946 and the said Vehicle was insured with the O.P. i.e. the New India Assurance company Ltd. The policy number of the said vehicle is 51290031170300026223 and the period of insurance was from 01.09.2017 to 31.08.2018.
The said vehicle of the Complainant involved an accident on 16.05.2018 and the Complainant informed the said accident of accident to the O.P. No. 2 Vidyut Autotech Pvt. Ltd., RERNAULT BERHAMPORE and also informed the matter to the O.P. No. 1. The O.P. NO. 2 took the vehicle on 17.05.2018 for repairing the same in its Service Center Gopgram, NH 34, P.O.- Ranida, P.S.- Nabagram, Dist- Murshidabad.
The O.P. No. 2 after examining the said vehicle prepared an estimated cost amounting to Rs. 12176.00/- including spare parts amounting to Rs. 8,400.00 and labour charges amounting to Rs. 3,200.00/- and also prepared another estimated cost of Rs. 77810.00/- regarding spare parts of engine assy. and engine ass o/h.
The Complainant had deposited the aforesaid estimated cost along with other documents regarding aforesaid vehicles to the O.P. No. 1 and claimed the aforesaid estimated costs from the O.P. No. 1. But the O.P. No. 1 inspite of repeated request and demand did not take any steps in the said matter nor paid any amount to the O.P. No. 2 on the basis of the aforesaid estimated cost for repairing the said vehicle.
The Complainant thereafter further informed the said matter to the O.P. No. 1 on 24.07.2018 by regd. Post and requested to take immediate steps, so that the Complainant can get her vehicle from the O.P. No. 2 after required repairing.
As the O.P. No. 1 unnecessary delayed the matter and not intimated the O.P. No. 2 regarding the repair the vehicle on the basis of the submitted estimate, the O.P. No. 2 failed to perform job on the basis of the estimates resulting the O.P. No. 2 has claimed Rs. 200/- per day as parking charge from the dated of received the said vehicle i.e., on 17.05.2018.
Due to gross negligence and mal practice of the O.P. No. 1 the Complainant incurred losses and became mentally upset and it is completely deficiency of the service on the part of the O.P. No. 1. Moreover the Complainant failed to use her said vehicle for her personal need, resulting to various problems for performing her job smoothly.
The Complainant submitted complaint regarding the above matters to the Office of the Assistant Director Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Murshidabad Regional Office, Berhampore, Murshidabad. The representative of the O.P. No. 1 appeared before the said office on 11.10.2018 in connection with case No. 132/18(FS) dt. 20.09.2018 and on mediation the O.P. No. 1 stated that the Company was unable to process the said claim of replacing the damage engine of the aforesaid vehicle as it was absent in the report given by the surveyor as well as in the estimate submitted by the O.P. No. 2.
The Insurance Company willfully, purposely and negligently for avoiding the Estimated Costs prepared a story regarding replacing the damage engine of the said vehicle.
The Assistant Director of the said Office vides his order dated 11.10.2018 in connection with the said case dropped the said case directing the Complainant to move the matter before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. Hence the Complainant files this complaint before the Ld. Commission for seeking relief as mentioned under.
Defence Case
O.P. 1 is contested the case by filing W/V contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable. The specific case of this O.P. is that the Complainant had hit the car with a big stone/boulder and the bottom chamber of the vehicle was totally damaged. Being unaware of that fact the Complainant had driven the vehicle for another 1/2 kms and as a result the engine of the car was totally ceased. This O.P. had appointed a surveyor and the loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.7,000/- and this O.P. had written to the Complainant to submit some of the documents. But instead of doing so the Complainant had filed the instant case.
P.W. 2 filed a petition on 21.02.2019 stating that the Complainant took back his car after making necessary payment on 20.02.2019.
On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Have the OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point no.1, 2 & 3
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer to the O.P.s. The point to be noted is that none appears on behalf of the O.P.s. However, we peruse the materials on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the Complainant is a consumer to the O.P.s.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the vehicle of the Complainant met with an accident on 16.05.2019 which is within the period of insurance policy. The Complainant had to pay Rs. 73758/- to the O.P. No. 2 at the time of receiving back the vehicle after necessary repairs. The Complainant had to pay the repairing charges and the parking fees @ of Rs.200/- per day, totaling Rs. 73758/-. In support of his contention he has filed the tax invoice.
Keeping in mind the submissions advanced by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant we peruse the materials on record. The accident took place on 16.05.2018 which is within the period of insurance policy.
Para-12 of the W/V filed by the O.P. No. 1 may be quoted here “ That this opposite party begs to submit that the Complainant had hit the car with a big stone/boulder and the bottom chamber of the vehicle was totally damaged. Being unaware of that fact the Complainant had driven the vehicle for another ½ kms and as a result the engine of the car was totally ceased. This opposite party had appointed a surveyor and the loss was assessed to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- and this opposite party had written to the complainant to submit some of the documents. But instead of doing so the complainant had filed the instant case.”
Here, we find that the O.P. 1 assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- only through his appointed surveyor and this O.P. 1 was willing to pay the said amount to the Complainant after receiving some documents from the Complainant. But the fact in hand is that the Complainant received back his vehicle from the O.P. No. 2 after making payment of Rs. 73758/-. The Complainant has also filed the necessary tax invoice to that effect.
In view of the matters discussed above we are of the view that the Complainant is entitled to get Rs. 73758/- from the O.P. 1, the New India Assurance Company Limited.
The Complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 6242/- from the O.P. 1 as litigation cost.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 28.11.2018 and admitted on 10.12.2018. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act, 1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case is allowed.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/183/2018 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. 1 but dismissed against the O.P. No. 2 under the circumstances without any order as to costs.
O.P. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 73758/- (seventy three thousand seven hundred fifty eight only) as repairing and parking cost of vehicle of the Complainant and Rs. 6242/- (six thousand forty two only) as litigation cost totaling Rs. 80000/- to the Complainant within 60 days from the date of this order. In default the said amount of Rs. 80000/- will carry interest @ of 10 per cent per annum with effect from 18.03.2024.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
Member President.
