This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant that OP No. 1 is the Insurance Company deals with General Insurance Company and OP No. 2 is the Bank wherefrom the complainant took financial assistance for purchasing his vehicle. OP no. 3 is the authorized agent of OP no. 1 .

            It is also stated by complainant that he is the only earning member of his family and the vehicle in question is the only source of income of complainant. 

            Further case of the complainant is that complainant purchased an insurance policy from op no.1 and after lapse of first policy complainant renewed the policy certificate no. 3379/00872066/00/01 which is valid from 10/04/2014 to midnight on 09/04/2015 and complainant paid total premium of Rs. 52,718/- only for its vehicle for insurance.

            Complainant further has narrated that unfortunately said vehicle met  an accident on 25/06/2014 at 2.45 p.m.at M.D. Bazar, P.S. & Dist-Birbhum.  Complainant instantly had lodged a complain at the O.P.no 1’s toll free no. 1800 200 5544 at 3.30 p.m. on 25/06/2014 and from where O.P. 1 has given the claim no. being 337911 16601 dated 25/06/2014.

            Complainant also states that on 26/06/2014 Surveyor Mr. Santosh Roy of O.P.No.1 inspected the vehicle and after getting verbal nod to proceed for repairing work,  complainant incurred Rs.5,35,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand) towards the repairing  works of the vehicle.   It is also stated by Complainant that more than Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs) only was required for repairing work of damaged Chassis of that vehicle and the complainant thought that after getting the insurance claim he would get his damaged Chassis repaired with that amount and then he again claimed said cost of repairing from the Insurance Company as reimbursement, but due to paucity of fund complainant couldn’t able to complete  his job and thus, later on the complainant had deposited all the papers of expenses on 20/07/2014 towards the officials of O.P. No.1, but after elapsing three months the complainant did not get any single penny from the office of the O.P.No.1 as his legitimate claim.

            The Complainant further states that the  officials of the O.P. No. 1 only sanctioned Rs. 2,80.000/-(Rupees Two lakhs eighty thousand)only instead of Rs. 5,35,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand )only  and then the officials of the O.P. No. 1  also told complainant that they were trying to raise his claim by another sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand)only, but refused to give any written communication to the Complainant  on that score.

            It is also stated by complainant that on 31/10/2014 the complainant sent his letter to O.P. No. 1 &2 through his Ld. Advocate and the same was subsequently and respectively received by O.P. No. 1 & 2. But the complainant did not receive any positive reply from the O.P. No.  1  & 2’s end nor his claim had been settled. On 29/11/2014 the complainant suddenly received a letter from the O.P. no. 1’s end wherefrom the O.P. No. 1 without stating/giving any valid reason repudiated the claim as “No Claim”.

            Further case of the complainant that since the accident complainant is regular in payment about his EMI to the O.P. No. 2 bank, but the O.P. No.2 over telephone threating the complainant that they would repossess his vehicle anytime by taking help of their muscle men for which the complaint is passing his days with great anxiety.

            It is also stated by the complainant that the O.Ps are not providing proper service inspite of taking service charges from the complainant and not responding to the legitimate claim and they are deficient in their services.

            On 31/10/2014 when the complainant sent legal notice to the O.Ps through his Ld. Advocate and lastly on 29/11/2014 when the O.P. No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant without any valid reason and the cause of action has been continuing thereafter.

            Accordingly complainant has prayed for  direction upon the opposite party no.1  to pay sum of Rs.5,35,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand) only without further delay with 12% interest from the date of the claim and to pass an order directing O.P. No. 2 not to disturb the complainant till the disposal of claim of complaint by repossessing the vehicle with the help of its muscle men without due process of law and to pass an order directing O.P. No.1 to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- towards mental agony, anxiety and harassment caused by the deficiency in service and acts of unfair trade practice by the O.P. No.1. and to pass an order directing O.P. No.1 to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as litigation cost and to pass an order for any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled to in law and equity.

            The opposite party No. 1 has contested the case by filing written version denying all the material allegations as levelled against him and it is denied that the complainant thereafter times without number contacted op no. 1 and the official of the O.P. No. 1 told him that his claim was under process and they have sanctioned Rs. 2,80,000/- (Rupees Two Lac and Eighty Thousand) only instead of Rs. 5,35,000/- (Rupees Five Lac Thirty Five Thousand) only or that the complainant asked them to give details and reconsider his claim and then the officials of the O.P. NO. 1 told him that they are trying to raise his claim by adding another Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand ) only and at the same time refused to give him any written communication or that after elapsing of petty long time when the complainant did not receive any positive reply from the O.P. No. 1’s end, he then wrote to the O.P. No. 1 through his Advocate a letter dated 31/10/2014 and the same was received by the O.P. No. 1 on 03/11/2014 and subsequently complainant neither receive any positive reply from the O.P. No. 1’s end nor his claim has been settled and the complainant  is entitled to get exemplary compensation and costs from the Opposite Party No.1 in addition to his rightful dues which would be an eye opener to the common people or that for the aforesaid unlawful activities of the O.P. No. 1 thereby causing deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has suffered mental agony, anxiety and harassment for which the complainant should be compensated adequately and thus, the complainant is liable to strict proof the same with documentary evidence.

            The above claim of the complainant  is totally misconceived and as no cause of action at all arose for filing the instant case and the claim of complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs and the statements made in rest paragraphs in the prayer portion  of the complaint, O.P. No. 1 humbly submits that the complainant  is in no way entitled to get any redressal from this  Forum as prayed for and during process of claim it was found that in this case the insured was given a loss assessment calculation on 28/10/2014 and was asked to give his consent regarding the claim assessment, but inspite of several reminders he has not given us any reply, therefore, by letter dated 24/11/2014 this O.P. No. 1 has intimated the complainant that due to non submission of document and consent to the loss assessment, O.P. No. 1 cannot proceed with the claim hence, the claim is treated as “NO CLAIM”. Even after getting the letter from O.P. No. 1 the complainant has not contacted with the O.P. No. 1 for further processing of the claim.  Thus, this claim petition is misconceive and premature in nature and liable to be dismissed with cost. O.P. No. 1 undertakes to file the relevant documents in support of its contentions at the time of argument.

            The MANAGERR-LEGAL CLAIM, CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCAE COMPANY LTD, CHHABILDAS TOWERS 3^rd FLOOR, 6A, MIDDLETON STREET, KOLKATA-700071 is situated outside the jurisdiction of this Forum and the O.P. No. 1 has no branch  office or carries on business or personally works for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this  Forum.

            Hence, O.P. No. 1 has prayed for dismissal of the case of complainant.

            It may be noted that though O.P. No.2 on 10/07/2015 filed written version but, upon the prayers of the complainant Vide order no. 25 dated 28/03/2017 this Forum allowed a petition of complainant stating that case has been compromised with O.P.no. 2 and the said prayer of complainant is allowed and accordingly name of O.P.No.2 has been expunged from this case.

            Op no. 3 filed one written objection on 4.8.2015 (perhaps op no. 3 had a mind to file written version). Anyhow, op no. 3 has tried to highlight that complainant’s vehicle met an accident on 25.6.2014 at about 2:45 pm at M.D. Bazar in Dist. Birbhum and complainant instantly had lodged a complaint at the op no. 1’s toll free help line number B18002005544 at about 3:30 pm on 25.06.2014.

            On 26.6.2014 concerned surveyor, Mr. Santosh Roy of op no. 1 inspected the vehicle and took photographs of the same and at the same time get permission to the complainant verbally to proceed for repairing work. After getting that verbal nod the complainant has already incurred Rs. 5,35,000/- only towards the repairing expenses. More than a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- only was required for repairing the damages chasis. The complainant thought that after getting the insurance claim he would get the cost of repairing of his damaged chasis. It is also stated by op no. 3 that due to paucity of funds complainant could not do his complete job and thus, later on complainant had deposited all the papers of expenses on 20.7.2014 to the office of op no. 1 amounting to Rs. 5,35,000/-.

            It is further stated by op no. 3 that due to op no. 1’ aforesaid act the complainant suffered irreparable financial loss and injuries as he has purchased the aforesaid vehicle for living his livelihood which is only his source of income and op no. 3 personally times without number requested the Insurance company to settle the matter, but there was no fruitful result. Thereafter op no.3 and complainant times without number contacted op no. 1, but the official of op no. 1 told them that the claims was under process and they have sanctioned Rs. 2,80,000/-. Then complainant asked to give details and reconsider his claim. Then op no. 1 told complainant that they are trying to raise his claim by another sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- but at the same time refused to give him any written communication. Then after elapsing of petty long time complainant did not receive any positive reply from op nos. 1 and 2’s end and he then wrote op nos. 1 and 2 through his Advocate stating them the actual state of affairs by letter dt. 31.10.2014 and that was received by op no. 1 and 2 on 3.11.2014. Thereafter complainant suddenly received a letter dt. 29.11.2014 from op no. 1’s end wherefrom without giving any valid reason repudiated the claim as “No claim”. As per op no. 3 complainant is entitled to get relief against op no. 1 and op no. 3 has categorically stated that name of op no. 3 is required to be expunged from this case.

            The complainant on 9.8.2018 filed a petition praying for accepting the complaint petition as evidence on affidavit and the prayer of complainant was accepted vide order dt. 9.8.2018.

            Further it may noted that on 14.11.2018 this Forum rejected the prayer of opposite party for filing evidence on affidavit and this forum fixed 2.1.2019 for hearing argument and to file BNA by both parties. So, it is clear that ops have not filed evidence on affidavit.

            Further, it may be noted that complainant filed BNA. Op no. 1 filed BNA and Op no. 2 also filed BNA.

            Argument as advanced by the agents of the complainant and the opposite parties heard in full.

            From the discussion herein above, we find the following issues/points for consideration.

Issues/points for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not?

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

All the points are taken together for easiness of the discussions of this case.

1. In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant here in is a consumer of the opposite parties.
2. Both the complainant and the opposite parties are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly. Considering the claim amount of complainant as per prayer of the petition of complainant it appears that those are not exceeding 20,00,000/-. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
3. Vide order dt. 22.4.2019 this Forum clearly observed in course of hearing argument that complainant had expensed a sum of Rs. 5,35,000/- for repairing of the vehicle of the complainant which was insured before the op/ Insurance company and from the face of the case record it appears that accident took place within the policy period. So, the insurance company under liability to pay amount expensed during the repairing of the vehicle in accident and this Forum in such circumstances directed op no. 1 to consider the claim of complainant as early as possible and to report before the Forum on the date fixed and this Forum fixed 12.6.2016 for report and hearing further argument. Ultimately, on 28.1.2021 op no. 1 filed one petition stating that op no. 1 deputed one surveyor to survey the vehicle in question and during the claim of the complainant concerned surveyor gave a calculation showing loss, but the complainant was asked to give his reply, if any to that effect, but complainant did not give any reply. Thereafter insurance company by letter dt. 24.11.2014 stated that due to non submission of documents on behalf of the complainant the report of the surveyor could not be proceeded with the claim. Hence, the claim is treated to be no claim and further op no. 1 also in view of the said petition has filed a prayer to expunge the name of op no. 1 from this case. This Forum clearly observed vide order dt. 28.1.2021 that without obeying the spirit of the order dt. 22.4.2019 op no. 1 insurance company filed the petition dt. 28.1.2021 with a prayer for expunging the name of op no. 1. In fact, this forum is of the view that it is an escaping attitude on the part of op no. 1 and the question of expunging the name of op no. 1 from cause list does not arise and thus, prayer of op no. 1 for expunging its name stands rejected and this forum also observed that op no. 1 has not filed any report also.

            It is pertinent to mention another point that upon the prayer of complainant this Forum on 28.3.2017 passed an order expunging op no. 2 (The Area Manager, Indusind Bank, 41, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700 017) on consent of all parties from this case. So, it is very curious enough as to how op no. 2 filed written argument on 8.1.2018, specially when its name has been expunged on consent of all parties from this case. Therefore, filing of written argument by Op no. 2 has become useless and it has no impact at all in determining the adjudication of this case on merit.

            Now, another crucial point to be noted that opposite parties (neither op no. 1 nor op no. 3) has adduced any evidence and this Forum vide order dt. 9.8.2018 has categorically rejected the prayer of opposite party for filing evidence on affidavit.  So, it is crystal clear that the present contesting op nos. 1 and 3 have not filed any written version.

            Therefore, the filing of written notes of argument on behalf of op no. 1 becomes hollow and going through the same carefully to the mind of this Forum the said written notes of argument on behalf of op no. 1 appears to be a futile attempt to make good its laches and negligence and this Forum is not in a position to appreciate the contents of the written notes of argument of op no. 1.

            Further it may be noted that on 4.8.2015 op no. 3 by filing written objection has clearly has sought for in allowing the prayer of complainant and in para 10 of the said written objection of op no. 3 it has been categorically mentioned that the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for against op nos. 1 and 2 and being op no. 3 his name is required to be expunged from this case. As a whole what we are finding that op no. 3 has directly and indirectly supported the case of complainant.

            Another important point to be noted that inspite of direction by this Forum op no. 1 has not filed any report, rather op no. 1 filed a petition on 28.1.2021 with a prayer for expunging its name and vide order dt. 28.1.2021 this Forum has clearly mentioned that this Forum is of the view that it is an escaping attitude on the part of op no. 1 and prayer of op no. 1 for expunging its name has been turned down by this Forum in the same order.

            It will not be out place to mention that complainant filed several pieces of photocopies of documents in support of his case. Going through the contents of BNA of the complainant and the contents of complaint including the photocopies of documents it is crystal clear that complainant has succeeded in proving his case and the volume of photocopies of documents support the claim of the complainant. Further it is to be noted that the relief of complainant against op no. 3 appears to be not at all reasonable as the role of op no. 3 against the claim of complainant appears to be less important and to the mind of this Forum though this Forum is passing formal decree against op no. 3 but he will not be encumbered with any liability. But this Forum is of the view that op no.1 should be encumbered under liability in respect of relief relating to the claim of complainant.

            In the result considering the whole episode and attending facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the view that complainant has succeeded in proving his case.

Hence,

it is

ordered

that the complaint case being no. 06 of 2015 be and the same is allowed on contest against op nos. 1 and 3 with cost.

            Op no. 1 is categorically directed to pay complainant a sum of Rs. 5,35,000/- ( five lac thirty five thousand) only within 45 days from this date of this order, failing which an interest @ 9% will be imposed upon the said amount till its realisation.

            Op no. 1 is further directed pay Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) only to the complainant towards mental agony, anxiety and harassment caused by op no. 1 in deficient service and acts of its unfair trade practice and a further sum of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) only to be paid by the op no. 1 to the complainant towards cost of litigation and both the payments should be made within 45 days from this date of order.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.