DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE NO:  CC-  82  of   2017

 

 

Smt. Rani Bala Das,

W/O- Sri Ratan Das,

Madhya Kashipur,

A. A. Road, 

Agartala – 799008. .….…...Complainant.

 

 

                -VERSUS-    

 

 

      The Divisional Manager,

United India Insurance Company Limited,

Divisional Office-Agartala,

G.R.S. Tower, R.M.S. Chowmuhani,

Tripura West- 799001. .............. 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 Tapan Saha,

  Sri Satyabrata Paul,

  Sri Bikash Debbarma,

  Sri Sundarbandhu Malsam   

For the O.Ps : Sri Karnajit De,

  Advocate.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   17.11.2017.

 

J U D G M E N T

  This case arises on the petition filed by one Rani Bala Das U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that her vehicle met with accident on 18.11.16 at Kumarghat Railway Station Chowmuhani and her vehicle was badly damaged and by a crane was taken to M/S Jalil Body Construction, Khutikatian, Noagaon and was spent Rs.4,50,000/- for repairing. The surveyor of the Insurance company also made assessment of damage. She claimed the amount Rs.4,50,000/- as spent for repairing but Insurance company only offered Rs.1,09,800/-. Insurance company after some time offered more amount but she claimed the amount spent for repairing as per policy condition. As her claim was not satisfied  she prayed for  redress before this Forum. 

 

2. O.P. Insurance Company appeared and filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that damage of the vehicle was assessed and Rs.1,09,800/- was sanctioned. Repairing firm was available in the nearest place but unnecessarily it was taken to a longest distance by the petitioner. Damage of the vehicle was not massive at all and Insurance Company after reassessment increased the amount to Rs.1,41,379/-. There is no deficiency of service by the O.P. 

 

3. On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination:

(i) Whether the petitioner suffered loss of Rs.4,50,000/-  from the damage of the vehicle?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the compensation for the deficiency of service by the O.P. ?

 

4. Petitioner produced the G.D. Entry, F.I.R., Mechanical Report, Insurance Policy Certificate, Drivings license, Registration, Fitness certificate, Road Permit, Pollution Certificate, letters, Estimate, Cash Memo of Battery, Advocate Notice, etc.  marked Exhibit- 1 Series. Also produced statement on affidavit of Rani Bala Das, the complainant of the case and Ratan Chandra Das, husband of the complainant.

 

5. O.P. on the other hand produced the Survey Report and statement on affidavit of Sujit Das, Administrative Officer of United India  Insurance Company. 

 

6. On the basis of all these evidence we shall now determine the points.

 

Findings and decision;

7. We have gone through the Insurance Policy Certificate issued by the United India Insurance Company. As per policy certificate, declared value of the vehicle was Rs.18 lacs and admittedly own damage is covered. There is no dispute on this point. Premium was up to date and own damage Premium Rs.12,485/- was paid. Policy was valid from 30.04.16 to 29.04.17. The accident occurred on 18.11.16 during validity of the policy. Petitioner stated that she had spent Rs.4,50,000/- excluding the cost of battery. She did not claim the expenditure incurred for journey of the vehicle to the distance place at Noagaon, Assam. Damage was assessed by the surveyor of Insurance company. But the surveyor who assessed the damage for Rs.1,09,800/- was not produced before us. Subsequently assessment report was produced and in that report cost of total damage is shown Rs.1,51,379/-. O.P. offered the same amount to the petitioner. In the damage assessment report or Addendum report the cost of plank and iron pipe is written Rs.40779/-.

 

8. Petitioner submitted the estimate given by the Jalil Body Construction. Chasis repairing cost was Rs. 40,500/- is written. Again for cost of cowl frame assembly repairing Rs.32,500/- written. Those appears to be same items. For repairing D- Cabin cost of repairing is shown Rs.1,40,000/-. Again for repairing the rear load body cost of repairing is written Rs.2,80,000/-. 

 

9. We have gone through the M.V. Inspector Report as produced by the petitioner. As per M.V.I. report left left side of the load body was effected and for repairing of that part expenditure Rs.2,80,000/- appears to be massive. As per the surveyor report cowl frame repairing cost is Rs.10,000/- but it was shown Rs.32,500/-. The load body making amount assessed was Rs.1,00,779/-  whereas the Jalil Body construction given its cost Rs.2,40,000/-. The vouchers in respect of payment is not produced. The M.V.I. Report did not support the complete destruction of load body. But the left side was effected. So we consider that the assessment made by the surveyor for Rs.10,000/- was appropriate. For cabin damage the repairing shop assessed the damage Rs.1,40,000/. Only coordinator side is damaged as per surveyor report. So this damage was not correctly assessed by the Jalil Body Construction. For Chasis repairing also high amount claimed and the Surveyor assessed it Rs.12,000/-.

 

10. We have gone through the evidences given by both the parties and consider that the petitioner claimed Rs.4,50,000/- based on the report of Jalil Body construction is improper and not appropriate. The mechanic of Jalil Body Construction also not appeared before us to support such expenditure was necessary for repairing of the truck. One photocopy of the money receipt is given on behalf of Jalil Body Construction which also considered not reliable. 

 

11. On scrutiny and analysis of the all the evidences we consider that the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.1,41,379/- + Rs.40,779/- as assessed by the surveyor of Insurance Company. Petitioner is not entitled to get the expenditure incurred for taking the vehicle at Noagaon. But there is long delay in the matter of payment of cost of repairing. The O.P. failed to assess the damage in time. Proper assessment also not done. Earlier assessment done without any report and justification. This is deficiency of service by the Insurance company. Petitioner is entitled to get Rs.50,000/- for such deficiency of service also Rs.5,000/- for cost of litigation. Petitioner is entitled to get the assessed amount Rs.1,41,379/- + Rs.40,779 + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.5,000/-. In total Rs.2,37,158/-. Both the points are decided accordingly.

 

12. In view of our above findings over the points we direct the O.P United Insurance company to pay Rs.1,82,158/- to the petitioner for damage of the vehicle as Insurance covered the own damage and Rs.55,000/- for deficiency of service and cost of litigation within a period of one month. 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