SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

            The synopsis of the complaint is that the complainant is the owner of vehicle No. WB-29/8187-Pick-UP Van. Said vehicle was insured with the OPs being policy No. 3379/01398785/000/00 for the period from 30.04.16 to 29.04.2017.  The vehicle was used to transport under CISF, HDC, Haldia on hire basis.  Suddenly on 08.10.2016 at about 2 PM, when said vehicle was returning from Calcutta with some CPC canteen items, at Dhulgarh under District Howrah, it met with a serious accident. The vehicle was damaged badly. The matter of accident was informed to the OPs immediately and claim docket No. is 3379183752 dated 08.10.2016 was opened.  Surveyor of the OPs surveyed the vehicle and took all the original car documents.  After several correspondence the OPs repudiated the claim by sending letter dated 03.12.2016 on some vague grounds. Lastly the complainant sent a demand notice to the OPs through their ld. advocate on 06.06.2017 claiming the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- as cost for repairing of the insured vehicle,  but the Ops remained silent over the claim of the complainant.

Hence, the instant case with the prayers as made in the complaint petition on the allegation of deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

            The OPs.  Cholamandalam  MS. General Insurance Co. contested the case by filing a single written version and denied the material allegations of the complaint and claimed dismissal of the complaint on various provisions of law.

            The specific case of the OP is that being intimated about the accident the OPs sent surveyor for inspection of the accident affected vehicle and the surveyor assesses the loss to the tune of Rs. 1, 53,212/-only.  It is the further defense of this OP that in the vehicle there was carrying capacity of two persons with loaded goods. On the date and time of the accident the said vehicle was carrying seven persons including the driver while running on NH -6 which is established from the FIR, police investigation report as well as report of the Co. investigation.  There was gross violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance coverage and so, according to this OP, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation or damage from this OP Insurance Co.  The fact of repudiation was clearly informed to the owner of the insured vehicle through letter dated 03.12.2016.

             Under such circumstances, the OPs pray for dismissal of the complaint petition with costs.

            Point to be considered in this case is whether the complaint case is maintainable and (2) whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

Decision with reasons

            Both the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience.

            We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant, the written version and all  the documents filed by both the parties, the affidavit in chief, the questionnaires and reply thereto filed by the respective parties and heard the submission of the ld advocate for the complainant. Considered.  

             In this case the OP Insurance Co. admitted in para 7 of their written version  that being intimated about the accident the Co. sent surveyor  for inspection and assessment of the damaged vehicle.  In para 8 of the written version the OP admitted that after inspection the surveyor  assessed the damage at Rs 1,53,212/-. The grievance of the OP  is that the disputed vehicle bearing No. WB 29A/ 8187 , as per rules had sitting capacity of two persons including the driver  and carrying goods. OP alleged that at the date and time of the accident  while plying on NH 6 road the vehicle was carrying seven persons including the driver when there was no such sitting  capacity. So, the vehicle violated the terms and condition of the policy and as such the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant.  

            The complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has stated that he is the registered power of the vehicle and the vehicle has been used for the purpose of his livelihood and for the livelihood of his family members and the vehicle was insured by policy No. 3379/01398785/000/00 for the period from 30.04.16 to 29.04.2017 . OP no 1 was the survey officer of the said policy and the said vehicle was running  in CISF Unit HDC , Haldia on hire basis for transportation of store system. Suddenly on 08.10.2016  at about 2 PM when the complainant‘s vehicle was running from Calcutta loading with CPC canteen items met an accident  at Dhulagarh under District Howrah and the vehicle got damaged very  badly.  The complainant stated that the total repair cost was Rs. 2,50,000/-. After the accident the complainant lodged  a claim before the OPs on 18.10.16. Surveyor of the Op Co.  surveyed the vehicle by taking all the original documents from the complainant. Subsequently the Ops repudiated the clam by sending letter on 03.12.2016 on some grounds which , as per the complainant was baseless  and vague. Hence, the complainant claimed Rs. 2,50,000/-  for expenditure  of repairing  of the vehicle and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 1 ,00,000 as mental agony totaling Rs. 3,60,000/-.

OP no. 1  questioned the complainant and he was asked  whether his vehicle was transport vehicle . the complainant answered  that his vehicle was loaded with goods.  In question no. 2 he was asked whether the accident was reported to police on 08.10.2016, the complainant answered ‘No’.  It was stated that whether he want to submit bill showing cost of Rs. 2,50,000/-  ; the complainant answered that the same has been filed in the record. 

We have gone carefully through the materials on record and find that admittedly the OP  sent surveyor to assess the damage of the vehicle and so, we can presume  this  fact that the accident took place and the disputed vehicle got damaged on the date and time of the accident otherwise  the OP would not sent  surveyor to assess the cost of repairing. 

In this connection we would like to refer the decision made in 2018 (1) CPR wherein  it has been held  that the decision of the insurer Co. to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds. Rejecting claim on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy-holders in the insurance industry. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactory explained, such acclaim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay.,  it is also  necessary to state  here that it would not be fair  and reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified and found to be correct by the Investigator.  The condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims 8  which have been otherwise  proved to be genuine. It needs  no emphasis  that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of consumers. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction This laudable object should not be forgotten while considering the claims made under the Act. The decision of 2018 (1) CPR 55 also held  “Surveyor assess loss  after taking into consideration policy documents and its actual verification of loss – There  is no counter evidence to show that assessment was improper or arbitrary – On the basis of Surveyor’s report  insurance company settled the matter at Rs. 24,97,516/- with signature on settlement intimation voucher – Complainant should have immediately raised protest – it is an afterthought – It was towards full and  final settlement without any protest as accepted ….

In this case further we cannot ignore the report of the surveyor as because the complainant could not show that  the same was biased  or improper. So, the complainant is entitled only to Rs.  153,212/- as per report of the surveyor.

We do not want to impose any compensation on the OPs but the complainant is only entitled to cost of Rs. 5000/- from the OPs. 

Both the issues are answered accordingly.

       Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/432 of 2017 be and the same is allowed  in part  on contest against both the OPs.

The Ops are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs. 153,212/- to the complainant along with cost of Rs. 5000/- within one month from the date of this order, id the OPs shall have to pay interest @ Rs 10 % per annum on the awarded amount.

There is no order of compensation.

Let copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.