West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/146/2014

Sukanta Bose - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jun 2015

ORDER

                                                             DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

 PRESENTS : Before Ld. President :  Mr. Bibekananda Pramanik.

                                     Ld. Member :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                     Ld. Member :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

                                               Complaint Case No.146/2014

                                                         Sri Sukanta Bose

                                                                                        ………Complainant

Vs

                                       The Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd.

                                                                                                     …………..OP

 For the Complainant : Mr. S.K. Jana, Advocate.

 For the O.P.              : Mr. M.K. Chowdhury, Advocate.

 

                                    Judgement delivered on: - 25/06/2015

                                

                                                  JUDGEMENT

         Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows:-

         The complainant owns a truck being registration No.WB33A-3708 and he insured his said truck with the opposite party i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd.  The complainant paid up to first party insurance premium amounting to Rs.25,000/- as package policy to the National Insurance Company Ltd. vide policy No.153800/31/13/6300005718 on 21/01/2014 and  it is valid upto 20/01/2015.  On 29/05/2014, the said truck of the complainant met a Road Traffic Accident under Onda Police Station area in the district of Bankura and the said matter was diarised vide G.D.E No.1024 dated 29/05/2014 of Onda Police Station.  The complainant informed the said matter at the office of the opposite party and a surveyor was appointed for assessing the damage and loss.  The said surveyor assessed loss in total Rs.37,000/- except cost of Engine Bonet, Front show (Left) , Centre Gril and Air Cleaner on 02/07/2014.  After submission of the said report, the complainant repaired total driver’s cabin including materials and labour charge and paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- at  Rana Engineering and Motor welding works at Harispur and purchased the entire damaged parts from Ajax Auto Corporation at 4, Princep Street,  Kolkata-72 by paying a sum of Rs.16.139/-.  After such repairing, the complainant claimed Rs.76139.00/- as full repairing costs from the opposite party but for unknown reason the  opposite party remained silent and lastly he agreed to

Contd………….P/2

 

                                             - ( 2 ) -

 

 pay only 22,502/-  without any reasonable explanation.  Thereafter, the complainant issued a demand notice through his Advocate Susanta Kumar Jana which was received by the opposite party on 09/10/2014.   Even after receipt of that notice, the opposite party remained silent.  Hence this complaint praying for an order directing the  opposite party to pay the entire amount of Rs.76,139/- as repairing cost, compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment, litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- and for other reliefs.

            OP Insurance Company has contested this case by filling a written objection. Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party that after such accident, an inspection was held and after such inspection, the surveyor cum loss assessor Mr. Sumen Kumar Maity assessed the loss at Rs.37.500/- and he elaborately discussed about the damages and loss in the acceptance note (Annexure-B) which was duly signed by the complainant Sukanta Bose.  It is stated that since the complainant  has accepted the said acceptance note, so he cannot depart from such acceptance note.  It is further stated that in the said acceptance note, the calculation and assessment has been elaborately made and discussed item-wise as to the damaged parts, different charges, rate of depreciation etc.  According to policy terms and condition,  depreciation and  other factors have been followed by the loss assessor in assessing loss in respect of accidental damaged vehicle and the total loss has been assessed at Rs.22,502/- which has been shown with break up item-wise in Annexure B.  It is claimed that there is no deficiency in service from the end of the Insurance Company and as such, the claim made by the complainant is not tenable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Points for decision

1)  Is the case maintainable in its present form and prayer?

                         2)     Is the complaint barred by limitation and territorial jurisdiction?

                         3)     Was there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

                         4)     Is the complainant entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

                  Point No.1

Maintainability of this case was not raised at the time of final hearing of the case.  On perusal of the petition of complaint, the written objection and other documents, we find that the present case is well maintainable in its present form and prayer.  This point is accordingly decided in the affirmative and in favour of the complainant.

Point No.2

It appears from the cause title of the complaint that the complainant is residing within the

jurisdiction of this District Forum and the opposite party also runs it’s business within

Contd………….P/3

 

                                             - ( 3 ) -

 

the jurisdiction of this District Forum.  The incident of accident took place on 29/05/2014 and the present complaint has been filed on 20/11/2014.  It thus appears that the present case is not at all barred by limitation and this Forum has jurisdiction to try the present case.  Accordingly, this point is decided in favour of the complainant.

Point Nos. 3 & 4

  For the sake of convenience and brevity, above two points are taken up together for consideration.  At the outset, it is to be mentioned here that neither the complainant nor the opposite party adduced any oral evidence in this case but they had relied upon some documents, so filed by them in this case.  On perusal of the pleadings of the parties as well as the documents submitted by the parties and after hearing both sides, it appears that it is not denied and disputed that the said truck of the complainant was duly insured with the O.P.- Insurance Company.  It is also not disputed that the said truck met a Road Traffic Accident on 29/05/2014 and the truck was damaged.  Accordingly to the complainant, he had to incur a sum of Rs.76,139/- for repairing such damage which includes the cost of materials, labour charges etc.  He, therefore, sent a demand notice to the O.P.- Insurance Company through his Advocate for payment of the said amount but that opposite party did not pay any heed to such demand of the petitioner.   As against this, it is the case of the opposite party that after such accident, the said truck was inspected by their surveyor who surveyed in presence of the complainant and the said surveyor made an acceptance note (Annexure-B) which was duly signed by the complainant.  In their written statement in paragraph 11, the O.P.- Insurance Company has given a clear  description of such assessment of loss of damaged parts, labour charges showing depreciation value and assessed the loss amounting to Rs.22,502/-.  we have already stated that the said assessment note was prepared in presence of the complainant and he also signed thereon.  According to the complainant, he got his damaged car repaired by Rana Engineering & Motor welding Works and he had to pay Rs.60,000/- for materials and labour charges and he purchased some other materials from Ajax Auto Corporation, 4, Princep Street, Kolkata-700 072 and there he had to pay Rs.16,139/-.  According to him, he is entitled to the said amount total amounting to Rs.76,139/- as repairing cost of his damaged car.   In this regard, we find that apart from producing few documents regarding such repairing of the vehicle, the complainant adduced no oral evidence in support of such repairing cost of the vehicle.  On the other hand, the opposite party admittedly engaged a surveyor for inspection of the damaged car and for assessment of loss of such damage.  It is not disputed that the surveyor inspected the said

Contd………….P/4

 

                                             - ( 4 ) -

 vehicle and prepared acceptance note in presence of the complainant who also signed on that “acceptance note”.  At the time of hearing, Ld. Lawyer for the complainant referred a ruling reported in 2014 (3) CPR 172 (NC) wherein it has been decided that survey report is not a final word.  As against this, Ld. Lawyer for the opposite party referred a decision of the Hon’ble NCDRC reported in Vol. ii (2013) CPJ (NC) wherein it has been held that report of surveyor is a vital and important piece of evidence and the same cannot be discarded in absence of any evidence to the contrary showing that loss was more than assessed.  We have already stated that apart from producing few documents regarding repairing charges and purchase of damaged parts, the complainant adduced no oral evidence to substantiate that the loss suffered by it was more than what was assessed by the surveyor.  Onus to prove that the loss was more than what had been assessed by the surveyor was on the complainant and in the present case, the complainant has failed to discharge by leading cogent evidence that the loss suffered by him was more than what was assessed by the surveyor.  So, in view of the said reported decision, the report submitted by the surveyor in this case cannot be ignored or rejected.  It is, therefore, held that the complainant is entitled to Rs.22,502/-, as assessed by the surveyor, towards repairing cost of it’s vehicle.

       About the other reliefs regarding payment of compensation for mental pain, agony,  harassment and litigation cost, we find that the opposite party had no intention to pay the said amount of Rs.22,502/- but it was the complainant who disputed  such assessment by the surveyor and claimed excess amount.  The conduct of the opposite party in the present case does not show that there was deficiency in service on it’s part and therefore the complainant is not entitled to the other reliefs as prayed for.

       These two points are therefore decided accordingly.

       All the points are disposed of and in the result, the complaint case stands allowed in part.

                                                Hence, it is,

                                                 ORDERED,    

                                                    that the case be and the same is allowed  in part on contest  without cost.

      The complainant do get an order of payment of Rs.22,502/- which is to be paid by the opposite party within a month from this date of order.

               Dic. & Corrected by me

                       President                          Member              Member                             President

                                                                                                                                District Forum

                                                                                                                           Paschim Medinipur.