Order No. 22 dt. 15/02/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a TATA truck under an agreement of hypothecation by and between the complainant and L&T Finance considering a sum of Rs,17,00,000/-. The complainant purchased a policy from the o.p. no.1. During the midnight of 11.06.2011 the driver of truck no.WB-41E-9748 driving the vehicle through Durgapur Expressway at that time while reached in between Jaugram and Masagram within the jurisdiction of Jamalpur P.S. suddenly collided with another vehicle. As a result of which the truck was damaged and the driver of the vehicle sustained injuries. The complainant informed the said fact to o.p.no.2 and claimed compensation but the o.p. did not take any step to pay any compensation, on the contrary withheld the claim of the complainant. The complainant sent several letters but no action was taken on behalf of the o.p.no.2. In view of the said fact the complainant filed this case with the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. Accordingly the complainant prayed for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- , Rs.2,00,000/- for harassment + interest.
The o.ps contested the case by filing a w.v. and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the case is bad for non joinder necessary party. The vehicle was hypothecated under L&T Finance Ltd and L&T Finance Ltd should have been impleaded as a party in this case. The complainant had taken a GCV-Public Carrier other than three wheeler package for a period of 10.04.2010 to 11.04.2011 against the sum of Rs.17,00,000/-. After the said accident and also getting the information the o.ps depute a Surveyor namely Gautam Roy licensed by IRDA who conducted survey on 02.07.2011 at M/s Anil Body Builder, Magra , Hopoghly and submitted a report after duly assessing the extent of damage and loss of Rs.83,300/- (Rs.32,780/- as spare parts, Rs.51,400/- and Rs. 2,500/- as labour charges ), after deducting Rs.2,380/- salvage and Rs.1,500/- as policy excess. The total amount of Rs.83,300/- was finally assessed and the report was submitted on 18.10.2011 to the o.p.
Upon receiving the said report the o.p. sought for clarification regarding the date of registration, invoice etc. But the o.p. did not reply the said clarification. After waiting some period the o.p. closed the claim as “No Claim” and the said fact was informed to the complainant on 31.01.2012. The complainant after receiving the said letter failed to contact the o.p. subsequently filed this case. In view of the said fact the o.p. prayed for the dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the o.p.
- Whether an accident took place in respect of the said vehicle
- Whether the said vehicle was damaged in the accident
- Whether the complainant made claim to the o.p.
- Whether the o.p. sought for clarification met by the complainant
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on part of the o.p.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get 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.
The ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the vehicle was purchased with the finance provided by L&T Finance Ltd and the vehicle was insured with the o.p. While the vehicle was proceeding towards Rampurhat on the way an accident took place, because of such accident vehicle was badly damaged. The fact of accident was informed to o.p. and the complainant claimed the damage but o.p. did not take any action for which the complainant had to file the case praying for the amount of the damage caused to the said truck as well as for compensation.
The ld. lawyer for the o.p. argued that immediately after getting information in respect of the accident caused to the insured vehicle and assessor was appointed and he assessed the damage after considering the all aspects he assessed the total loss caused to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.83,300/- and he submitted the report to the o.p. After receiving the report the o.p. sought for some clarification regarding the date of registration of the vehicle as we’ll as the date of invoice in respect of the said vehicle. The said clarification was communicated to the complainant but no communication was received from him accordingly the case was closed. Subsequently the complainant filed this case praying for cost of damage of Rs.3,00,000/- in respect of the said truck as well as compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and also for other reliefs. Since the complainant failed to respond to the queries made by the o.p. thereby the o.p. cannot be held liable for any compensation as such the o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submission of the respective parties it appears that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the o.p. It is an admitted fact that the policy was valid at the time of said accident. It is also found from the materials on record that the complainant after the accident informed the o.p. regarding the fact of accident for which a Surveyor (IRDA approved) was deputed and he assessed the damage at M/s Anil Body Builder, Magra, Hooghly and after considering the extent of damage + labour charges and calculating the necessary deduction the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.83,300/-. The complainant was asked to clarify some points which were not answered resulting in closure of the claim of the complainant.
Considering the evidence on record it appears that the complainant had the expectation that the surveyor would assess the damage as per the claim of the complainant. But since the quantum of damage assessed by the surveyor was not upto the expectation of the complainant therefore the complainant kept silence and filed the case with the prayer of huge amount than that of the assessment made by the surveyor. Though the o.p. claimed that the clarification was sought for from the complainant but no documentary evidence has been produced to justify the claim of the o.p.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the complainant sustained damage for the said accident in respect of the insured truck which were assessed by the surveyor to the tune of Rs.83,300/- thereby we hold that the complainant will be entitled to get the said amount from the o.p and the complainant will be entitled to get compensation.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered
That the CC No.571/2012 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. O.p. is directed to pay an amount of Rs.83,300/- and compensation of Rs.20,000/- . The complainant will also be entitled to get Rs.2000/- as litigation cost from the o.p. The O.P. is directed to pay the said amount within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
