DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 41 of 2017

 

 

      Sri Goutam Paul,

S/O- Sri Satya Ranjan Paul,

North Chebri, 

P.O. Chebri, P.S. Khowai

District- Khowai. ....…...Complainant.

 

 

            VERSUS

 

     

      The Divisional Manager,

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,

44/2 Central Road, 

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

Tripura West. .........Opposite party.

 

 

      __________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.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C  O  U  N  S  E  L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Bhupal Ch. Biswas,

 Mr. Mustak Ahamed,

 Advocates.

 

For the O.Ps : Sri Prahlad Kr. Debnath,

 Advocate.

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   05.07.2017.

 

J U D G M E N T

This case arises on the petition filed by one Goutam Paul U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

2. Petitioner's case in short is that on 30.09.16 the vehicle Mini Bus which was covered by the Insurance policy certificate while returning from Khowai met with accident at Subal Singh Para. Thereafter the anti social elements of the area instigated the local public who encircled the vehicle and set fire. The vehicle was completely damaged by the said fire. The vehicle had the insurance coverage, route permit, tax clearance certificate. The driver of the vehicle had valid driving license. Petitioner filed claim before the O.P. Oriental Insurance Co. and the damage was assessed by the surveyor. But finally claim not satisfied after lapse of long time. So he filed the case for the deficiency of service by the O.P.

3. O.P. Oriental Insurance company  appeared, filed W.S denying the claim. It is admitted that the vehicle had insurance coverage from the period from 31.01.16 to 30.01.17. Sum assured Rs. 4,70,000/-. Surveyor was appointed for assessment of the damage. Net loss was assessed Rs.3,38,500/-. O.P. asked the petitioner to submit papers relating to route permit, registration and other. But those papers were not submitted. So, claim could not be finally settled.  There is no deficiency of service by the O.P.

4. On the basis of rival contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination;

(I) Whether the petitioner's claim was unnecessarily delayed by the O.P. and petitioner is entitled to get compensation?

  (II) Whether there was any deficiency of service by the O.P. Insurance company?

 

5. Petitioner produced the original Insurance Certificate, Route Permit, Tax Token, Fitness Certificate, Registration Certificate, Letter to the Divisional Manager, Letter to Goutam Paul by the Insurance Co., Charge sheets, Ezahar & other copies.

 

6. Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of petitioner himself. 

 

7. O.P. on the other hand produced the certified copy of Policy, intimation letter, Check List of requirements letter, Letter of Estimate, letters, Investigation reports, Surveyor appointment letter, Survey Report etc. 

 

8. O.P. also produced the statement on affidavit of Biswajit Saha, Surveyor and Badal Das, Senior Assistant, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

 

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

 

Findings and decision;

10. It is to be noted here that both parties have filed written argument.

 

11. We have gone through the letters given by Senior Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. He requested Goutam Paul to submit the duplicate copy of the permit of the vehicle at the relevant time of accident. In that letter Senior Divisional Manager agreed to settle the claim on non-standard basis i.e., 75% of the final assessed amount of the claim.  But that 75% of the final assessed amount not paid to the petitioner till date. Gautam Paul petitioner stated that he claimed the loss of the vehicle which was completely damaged. He informed the Insurance Company about burning of the documents but Insurance company  insisted for original copy which was destroyed by fire. From the policy certificate produced by both the parties it is found that own damage was covered for Rs.4,70,000/- for the liability of the Insurance Company. Fact of damaging the vehicle by fire is established and admitted fact.

 

12. We have gone through the verification report of Santi Brata Sarma, Investigator appointed by the Insurance company. From the verification certificate it is found that driving license was produced. Registration Certificate authentic confirmation letter was issued by the Registering Authority also produced.

 

13. Biswajit Saha Surveyor submitted his final report. According to him net liability of the insurer fixed Rs.3,69,161/-. The survey report was submitted by Biswajit Saha, the assessor on 14th September, 2016. Oriental Insurance company received it. But did not take any step for payment. Gautam Paul by the letter dated 14.09.16 prayed for getting Rs.1,30,000/- salvage amount but it was not paid by the Insurance Company. No cogent reason is given for non settling the claim. Petitioner produced the permit but it is related to period after accident.

 

14. We have gone through the screen report and it is found that tax paid up to 31.01.17. Fitness valid up to 03.03.17. Tax token was also produced signed by the Taxing Officer on 02.02.16. The Insurance company by its letter dated 04.11.16 informed the petitioner that they are ready to settle the claim on non standard basis i.e., 75% of the assessed amount of the claim. Thereafter why the claim not settled can not be understood. This is deficiency of service by the Oriental Insurance Company. Petitioner is entitled to get compensation for this deficiency of service. We consider that petitioner is entitled to get Rs.20,000/- for such deficiency of service of the Insurance company. As per decision of the supreme court vide VII (2014) SLT 464: IV (2014) CPJ 11 (SC) (Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.). In case petitioner failed to produce route permit papers and other relevant documents the claim should not be rejected out rightly but claim should be settled on non-standard basis by paying 75% of the assessed amount.

 

15. We therefore direct the Insurance company to pay the assessed amount as assessed by the assessor appointed by the Insurance company ie., the amount of Rs.3,69,161/- on production of all relevant documents. In case petitioner failed to produce the documents as necessary the claim should be settled on non-standard basis by paying 75% of Rs.3,69,161/-. Both the points are decided accordingly.

 

16. In view of our above findings over the points the case is disposed. We direct the Insurance company to pay the amount  on production of documents and on failure to pay 75% of the amount and also to pay Rs.20,000/- for deficiency of service and Rs.2000/- for cost of litigation. The amount is to paid within 2(two) months. If not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.

 

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

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 SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.