Date of filing : 06/01/2017
Order No. 13 dt. 06/04/2018
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is a bona fide policy holder of o.p. no.1 in respect of his vehicle being policy no.OG-16-2401-1812-00000309. The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 27.3.16 at Muragacha More, under P.S. Ghola. Due to the said accident the vehicle was extremely damaged and the vehicle was sent to the workshop of o.p. no.2. The complainant informed the said fact to insurance company and after getting such information the surveyor was sent for assessment of loss sustained due to the accident in respect of the vehicle. The surveyor did survey work and thereafter complainant demanded the amount for repairing of the same, but insurance company did not pay any heed. The insurance company ultimately repudiated the claim of the complainant for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for repairing charge as well as compensation and litigation cost.
The o.ps. contested the case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. In their w/v o.p. no.1 denied that o.p. no.o1 has not settled any claim. The complainant failed to provide the documents as sought for by o.p. no.1 for which the settlement could not be made in favour of the complainant. The complainant while made contact with insurance company all through o.p. no.1 demanded certain documents, but the complainant failed to provide those documents for which the claim of the complainant could not be entertained. Even o.p. no.1 asked for the documents showing that the repairing charges incurred by the complainant for the repairing of the said vehicle, but no such document was provided for which the fund could not be released. Since there was no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no.1 the case is to be dismissed.
In their w/v o.p. no.2 stated that the complainant has alleged that due to an accident the vehicle sustained damage. The complainant could not provide the GD wherefrom it can be evident that due to an accident the vehicle was damaged. It was further stated that when the insurance claim made by the complainant, o.p. no.2 is not supposed to take up the repair work and accordingly repair of the vehicle could not be made and as such, o.p. no.2 cannot be held liable for any compensation or litigation cost.
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be decided:
- Whether the vehicle of the complainant was insured with o.p. no.1?
- Whether vehicle met with an accident and the complainant informed the said fact to o.p. no.1?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons :-
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant is a bona fide policy holder of o.p. no.1 in respect of his vehicle being policy no.OG-16-2401-1812-00000309. The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 27.3.16 at Muragacha More, under P.S. Ghola. Due the said accident the vehicle was extremely damaged and the vehicle was sent to the workshop of o.p. no.2. The complainant informed the said fact to insurance company and after getting such information the surveyor was sent for assessment of loss sustained due to the accident in respect of the vehicle. The surveyor deed survey work and thereafter complainant demanded the amount for repairing of the same, but insurance company did not pay any heed. The insurance company ultimately repudiated the claim of the complainant for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for repairing charge as well as compensation and litigation cost.
During the course of argument Ld. Lawyer for the o.p. no.1 denied that o.p. no.o1 has not settled any claim. Ld. Lawyer for the o.p. no.1 argued that the complainant failed to provide the documents as sought for by o.p. no.1 for which the settlement could not be made in favour of the complainant. The complainant while made contact with insurance company all through o.p. no.1 demanded certain documents, but the complainant failed to provide those documents for which the claim of the complainant could not be entertained. Even o.p. no.1 asked for the documents showing that the repairing charges incurred by the complainant for the repairing of the said vehicle, but no such document was provided for which the fund could not be released. Since there was no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no.1 the case is to be dismissed.
Ld. Lawyer for the o.p. no.2 argued that the complainant has alleged that due to an accident the vehicle sustained damage. The complainant could not provide the GD wherefrom it can be evident that due to an accident the vehicle was damaged. It was further stated that when the insurance claim made by the complainant, o.p. no.2 is not supposed to take up the repair work and accordingly repair of the vehicle could not be made and as such, o.p. no.2 cannot be held liable for any compensation or litigation cost.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the vehicle in question was insured with o.p. insurance company at the relevant point of time. The complainant has claimed that during the subsistence of the said policy the vehicle met with an accident on 27.3.16 at Muragacha More, under P.S. Ghola. In order to substantiate the said fact the complainant filed a copy of FIR as well as the seizure list wherefrom it appears that due to an accident the said vehicle was damaged. Immediately after the said accident the complainant sent the vehicle to o.p. no.2 and informed the said fact to o.p. no.1. It appears from the materials on record that insurance company appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. The surveyor after considering the damage sustained by the said vehicle assessed the damage to the tune of Rs.81,411/-. The o.p. no.1 in spite of receiving the said report did not release the fund in favour of o.p. no.2 who was not inclined to make repairing of the vehicle, if no clearance is made from the side of o.p. insurance company for proceeding with the repairing work, so that the amount incurred for repairing can be paid by insurance company. The insurance company ought to have informed the complainant as well as to o.p. no.2 for effecting repairing of the said vehicle with the amount as assessed by the assessor. But o.p. no.1 in spite of having all sorts of information regarding the damage sustained by the said vehicle due to an accident unnecessary delayed the matter by asking from one document to another document though the complainant provided the prima facie document to establish his claim that due to an accident the vehicle sustained damage. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that the policy was valid at the time of the said accident and thereby the complainant will be entitled to get the amount from the insurance company so that the complainant can pay the same to the repairer i.e. o.p. no.2 for effecting repairing of the said damaged vehicle and accordingly we hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of o.p. insurance company and the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.07/2017 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. no.1 and dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p. no.2. The o.p. no.1 is directed to pay the amount of Rs.81,411/- (Rupees eighty one thousand four hundred eleven) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
