West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/27/2015

Matibul Mallick - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Mr. D. Mukherjee.

30 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.27/2015

                                                         Motibul Mallick

                                                                                        ………Complainant

Vs

                                       The Manager of Oriental Insurance  Co. Ltd.

                                                                                                     …………..OP

 For the Complainant : Mr. Debasish  Mukherjee, Advocate.

 For the O.P.                : Mr. Ashok Kr. Pal, Advocate.

 

                                    Judgement delivered on: - 30/06/2015

                               

                                                  JUDGEMENT

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

         The complainant owns a Truck being registration No.WB-33B/4538 and he insured his said truck with the OP- Insurance Company vide policy No.311901/31/2014/10036. On 07/11/2014, the said truck of the complainant met an accident on N.H.-49 at Duarsinighat and as a result of such accident, the truck was fully damaged.  The complainant informed the said matter to the opposite party and as per advice of the opposite party, the complainant repaired the said vehicle in his own cost.The opposite party also engaged a surveyor named Sudip Pradhan, who made inspection but till today, the opposite party did not pay any compensation money to the complainant.  The complainant thereafter sent a demand notice dated 26/02/2015 through his lawyer.  It is stated that the repairing cost of the said damaged truck was Rs.5,27,427/- only including labour cost and spare parts.  In spite of such demand notice, the opposite party denied to pay the said sum to the complainant which amounts to gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Hence, the complaint praying for a award of Rs.5,27,427/- with interest from the date of filing of the complaint. 

            OP-Insurance Company has contested this case by filing a written objection.  Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the case of the OP, that the complainant has got no cause

Contd………….P/2

 

                                             - ( 2 ) -

of action, that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form of prayer, that after knowing about such accident by letter dated 10/11/2014 of the complainant, Baripada Branch office of the OP, under whose jurisdiction the accident took place, arranged spot survey by Er. Sumanta Kumar Sahu and he submitted his report with Baripada Branch, who in its turn sent the spot survey report to the OP on or about 20/01/2015. Thereafter the OP engaged a surveyor named Sudip Pradhan who made a spot survey and submitted a report on 15/02/2015 and he assess the damage at Rs.1,80,787.50/-. It is further stated that the complainant lodged his claim with the OP on 10/11/2014 and on scrutiny, it was found that some documents including claim form, verified copy of the vehicle-documents and original bills and cash memos were not submitted along with the claim form and the OP therefore vide it’s latter dated 11/12/2014 requested the complainant to submit those documents within two weeks therefrom and a copy of such  letter was also sent to his Advocate Debasish Mukherjee and only thereafter, those documents were submitted by the complainant. Complainant was also informed about assessment of damages by the surveyor with a request to sing on the note of assessment but he did not turn up. On the contrary, he thereafter sent a legal notice upon the OP and thereafter he caused filing of this case. It will thus be evident that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP, who  is/was agreeable to pay the damages to the tune of Rs.1,80,787.50/- as assessed by the surveyor, to the complainant.

  

 

Points for decision

1)  Is the case maintainable in it’s 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 the jurisdiction of this District Forum.  The incident of accident took place on 07/11/2014 and the present complaint has been filed on 17/03/2015.  It thus appears that the present case is not at all

Contd………….P/3

 

                                             - ( 3 ) -

 

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 have 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 OP- Insurance Company.  It is also not disputed that the said truck met a Road Traffic Accident on 07/11/2014 and the truck was damaged.  Accordingly to the complainant, he had to incur a sum of Rs.5,27,427/- for repairing such damage which includes the cost of materials, labour charges etc.  He, therefore, sent a demand notice to the OP-Insurance Company through his advocate for payment of the said amount but that the 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/loss assessor Sudip Pradhan, who surveyed said damaged truck and he submitted his survey report on 15/02/2015  and he assessed the damage  at Rs. 1,80,787.50/-. OP also asked the complainant by it’s letter dated 11/12/2014 to submit few documents which were not submitted alongwith the claim form and on production of those documents,  complainant was asked by the OP to sign on the note of assessment but he did not turn up. On the contrary, he thereafter caused filing of this case after serving a lawyer’s notice.  I have already stated that neither the complainant nor the OP adduced any sort of evidence in this case but they have relied upon some documents.  It appears from the report of the surveyor cum loss assessor Sri Sudip Pradhan that after inspection of the said damaged vehicle, he assessed the damage at Rs.1,80,787.50 paisa.  The report goes to show that there is nothing wrong in such survey and assessment which has been made on basis of the policy document.  It is well settled that the surveyor’s report is an important document and the same cannot be discarded in absence of any evidence to the contrary showing that loss was more than assessed. Onus to prove that the loss was more than what has been assessed by the surveyor is 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.  Apart from producing some bills and vouchers regarding the alleged repairing cost of sum of Rs.5,27,427/-, complainant examined no witness to prove those documents.  At the time of hearing argument, Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submits that the surveyor illegally claimed Rs.1,50,000/- as bribe from the complainant and since the complainant did not pay the said amount to him, so he has submitted the

Contd………….P/4

 

                                             - ( 4 ) -

 

 survey report showing lesser amount of cost of repairing.  Said allegation is nothing but vague one as because there is nothing on record to show that any such amount was claimed by the surveyor as bribe.  So in view of the settled law, 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.1,80,787.50 paisa towards  repairing cost of his damaged vehicle which was insured with the Op-Insurance Company.

       About the claim of interest, we find that the conduct of the OP in this particular case does not show that there was any deficiency in service on it’s part as because there is no latches on the part of the OP regarding payment of such amount towards damages to the complainant but it was the complainant who disputed such assessment of damage and caused initiation of this case.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to an order of interest as prayed for. 

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

                                          Hence, it is,

                                                Ordered,

                                             that the case be and the same is allowed  in part on contest but  without cost. The complainant do get an order of payment of Rs.1,80,787.50 paisa from the OP, which is to be paid within a month from this date of order.

Dictated & Corrected by me

             

         President                          Member              Member                                 President

                                                                                                                         District Forum

                                                                                                                  Paschim Medinipur