West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/117/2011

Sri Chand Ratan Jhanwar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jun 2012

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No. 117/2011                                                         Date of disposal: 06/06/2012                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. K. S. Samajder.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kopot Chattopadhyay.

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. S. Bhattacharya.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                          : Mr. M. K. Chowdhury.

           Sri Chand Ratan Jhanwar, S/o-Late Premsukh Jhanwar of  Barabazar, P.O.-Midnapore,

           P.S.-Kotwali, Dist-Paschim Medinipur………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. The Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Inda, Kharagpur branch, P.S.-Kharagpur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur
2. The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional office at Haldia, P.O.-Khanjanchak, P.S.-Haldia, Dist-Purba Medinipur …………………Ops.           

            The present case has been filed by the complainant praying for an order directing the Op No.1 to pay Rs.41,171/- towards cost of repair of his vehicle as par the estimate issued by M/s Bhandari Automobile Pvt. Ltd.   Claimant has further claimed Rs.25,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards mental pain and agony and cost of litigation respectively.

             In a nut shell, the case of the complainant is as follows:-

             The complainant purchased a Maruti Swift car from M/s Bhandari Automobile Pvt. Ltd., Kharagpur on 06/08/2008.  On 02/08/11 while the complainant was coming in that vehicle with family members from Kolkata, at about 9 p.m. at a Kona express way a Dumper came from the opposite direction and dashed against the car of the complainant causing major damage to the engine as well as body of the car.  After the accident the offending dumper sped away.  Thereafter, somehow the complainant could contact M/s Bhandari Automobile at Howrah and with their help the damaged vehicle of the complainant was taken away to the garage of the Bhandari Automobile Ltd. by a break down vehicle. For the purpose of the repairing M/s Bhandari Automobiles Ltd. submitted an estimate of Rs.94,258.10/-. For the purpose of running the complainant got the minimum repair work down at a cost of Rs.41,171/- and the entire amount was borne by the complainant.  Thereafter, the complainant submitted claim in prescribed form to the Op No.1 but on 23/09/11 the complainant received a letter from the Op No.1 whereby to

Contd………….P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

Op No.1 disclosed that the claim of the complainant was repudiated.  Thereafter, on several times the complainant requested the Op No.1 to settle the claim but to no effect.  Hence this case.

                  The Ops contested the case by filing a W/O denying the materials averments of the claim application.  The specific contentions of the Ops were that, having come to know from the complainant about the accident of the vehicle, the complainant was issued claim form on 03/08/11.  Meanwhile, the complainant had placed his vehicle with M/s Bhandari Automobile Ltd. Howrah for repair.  After repair the complainant intimated vide letter dated 30/08/11 to the Op about the completion of repair work and incurring the expenditure of Rs.41,171/-.  On 01/09/11 the surveyor/loss Assessor Mr. Ranesh Chandra Mitra who was engaged by the Ops, inspected the damaged at the workshop of the repairer and a note of agreement was prepared about the damage on 01/09/2011 which note of agreement contained cost of labour charges, parts of damage and spare parts etc. which was allowable to the repairer and the repairer also signed in that note of agreement. As per the note of agreement, loss was assessed at Rs.18,352/-.  In the survey report Mr. Ranesh Chandra Mitra, surveyor, mentioned that the Kona Express is one way road and as such the vehicle of the complainant cannot be dashed by any other vehicle.  Accordingly, the damage of the vehicle was not in consistence with the cause and nature of the complainant was the claim was repudiated by the Op and such repudiation was duly intimated to the Op on 21/9/11.  Accordingly, the Op contended that the claim of the complainant was not tenable. 

            The only point is to be considered in this case is that whether the complainant is entitled to get any amount and if so, on what account and the quantum there of.

                                                   Decisions with reasons:

           In this case the parties relied upon the respective pleadings and the documents filed on record.  No other evidence was adduced on behalf of either of the parties.

          After hearing both the parties and upon consideration of the pleadings of the parties and also the documents filed on their behalf it appears to be an admitted position that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle, that the said vehicle met with an accident at the Kona express way on 02/08/11 and that the vehicle was under the coverage of the insurance with the Ops.  The complainant is said to have got the vehicle repaired after the accident from M/s Bhandari Automobiles at Howrah incurring an expenditure of Rs.41,171/-.  After the Op No.1 was informed about the accident and the repair of the vehicle, the loss and damage of the vehicle was assessed by the surveyor of the Ops, namely, Renesh Chandra Mitra  who prepared a summary of assessment.  The total assessment was for Rs.28,202/- including cost of repair and labour charges.  Although the complainant has claimed Rs.41,171/- but it is well known that for the purpose of repair of a vehicle everything is not allowable    There are certain restriction and rate as regards

Contd………….P/3

 

- ( 3 ) -

the admissibility of the cost of various parts of the vehicle.  As per the terms of coverage of insurance, the complainant has not been able to set out properly that each and every cost as incurred by him was allowable.  However, from the assessment report of Mr. Renesh Chandra Mitra, the surveyor/assessor who was engaged none other than by the Op, shows that the assessment was for Rs.28, 202/-.  I think, the Ops cannot deny the complainant to pay any amount less than that.

                The Ops have taken plea that Kona express way was one way and there was no possibility of the accident as stated by the complainant and as such the claim was repudiated.  Such contention of the Ops appears to be rubbish and base less.  Because in the road accident may take place for only reason and it cannot be said that all the vehicles playing on road do follow the traffic rules all the time.  In the instant case, it is undisputed that the damage has been caused to the vehicle of the complainant and the reason for damage was none but the accident.  The repudiation of claim of the complainant was unjust, unfair, whimsical and arbitrary.

                Therefore, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled at least the amount as assessed by the surveyor/assessor.  As stated above, the amount was Rs.28,202/-.  Over and above the amount we think a sum of Rs.3,000/- should be allowed to the complainant towards litigation cost and Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony, harassment etc.

                 Therefore, we are if the opinion that the complaint is entitled to get compensation of a total sum of Rs.34, 202/-.

                  Thus, this point is disposed of accordingly

                                                                                          Hence

                                                                                                     ordered

                                                                                                                       that the case succeeds on contest in part.  The complainant do get a total compensation of Rs.34,202/-.  The Ops are hereby directed to pay the said amount to the complainant within 30 days from this date, failing which the amount shall carry interest @12% p.a. till realization of the entire dues.                

 Dic.& Corrected by me.

                                                         I agree               I agree                      

              

         President                                Member            Member                       President

                                                                                                                  District Forum

                                                                                                         Paschim Medinipur.