West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/131/2014

Sri Dhiraj Kumar Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

05 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.131/2014                                                                                              Date of disposal: 5/05/2015                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

 For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. S. K. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

 For the Defendant/O.P.S.                        : Mr.A. Khamrui, Advocate.                                   

          

 Sri Dhiraj Kumar Sahu, S/o late Kaliprasaynna Sahu, At Bhola, P.O. & P.S. Gopiballavpur, Dist.

 Paschim Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1)The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., At Lal Bazar (Near Jubilee Library), Baripada, Dist. Mayurbhanj;

2)The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.110 002…………Ops.

          The case of the complainant Sri Dhiraj Kumar Sahu, in short, is that he is the registered owner of a pick up van being its registration No.WB-33A4682 under policy No.31/2011/1359 valid up to 21/09/2011 with the OP Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.  It is alleged that said Vehicle was totally damaged in a Road Traffic Accident took place on 10/03/2011.   The matter was reported to the OP who caused survey report dated 10/03/2012.  It is alleged that after long persuasion from the end of the complainant, a settlement was held and thereby the OP paid Rs.3,05000/- on 23/04/2014 as full and final settlement.  The complainant was aggrieved against the OP for unusual suffering due to delay in payment.  By this time the complainant was going to make regular payment of monthly installments till February 2011 and thereby he paid Rs.3,38,910/- in favour of financier Mahindra and Mahindra  Financial Service Ltd.  Stating the case, the complainant prays for payment of Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation for deficiency in service for delay settlement and award Rs.2,000/- with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.  In this connection, some documents are filed namely Letter dated 14/07/2011 issued by the OP, Assessment report dated 10/03/2012, Letter dated 14/03/2012 issued by the OP, Application dated 04/09/2013 filed by the complainant and Letter dated 23/04/2014 of the OP.

Contd…………….P/2

 

                                                             - ( 2 ) -

   

         The Op contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action but it is admitted by the OP that the survey work was taken place with loss estimate report at a delay stage on the ground of availability of various damage parts of the Vehicle in time and Arbitration Proceeding which were all within the knowledge of the complainant.  Contradictory to the same is required to be proved by him by virtue of relevant evidence.  In this connection, it is submitted by the OP that they were very much eager to make settlement of the claim and for that reason they had appointed the surveyor Mr. D. K. Mohanti who repeatedly asked the complainant for production of dismantled part by his repairer even by the letter dated 11/01/2012, 14/03/2012.  From the letter dated 04/09/2013 of the complainant it is clear that due to his negligent conduct for rendering necessary cooperation to expedite the process, the settlement – process was subjected to delay.  Thus, there was no deficiency of service on the part of the OP and as such the case should be dismissed.          

          Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1)Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?

2)Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?

3)Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 3:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the accidental damage of the Vehicle is not a subject denied by the OP.  But the claim settlement has taken its finality for about (3) three years even after long persuasion made by the complainant.  Thus, such delay on the part of the OP in the matter of making payment is sufficient for holding the allegation of deficiency in service against the OP Insurance Company.  Though, the settlement is accepted by the complainant, it would be just for allowing the prayer for compensation and litigation cost as prayed for in favour of the complainant.

              It is challenged by the OP that there is no evidence showing that the delay in making final settlement was caused due to inaction of the OP.  Rather, the OP was very much active and diligent in disposal of the claim case and on that score they have appointed competent surveyor whom the complainant did not cooperate properly.  Very clearly the entire aspect was disclosed

Contd…………….P/3

 

                                                             - ( 3 ) -

 

in the written objection but the same was not challenged by counter affidavit nor by production of necessary evidence to that effect.  So, mere statement of an allegation of delay cannot be taken as deficiency of service against the OP.  Thus, the case should be dismissed.

                We have carefully considered the case and you appear that the accidental damage of the vehicle took place on 10/03/2011 and the payment on final settlement was held on 23/04/2014 upon survey report and after undergoing Arbitration Proceeding on due payment on arrears installments in respect of the said vehicle.  The documentary evidence alongwith the plea for non-cooperation of the complainant with the surveyor without any contra evidence adduced in support of the case is altogether taken into our consideration.  We do not find any evidence from the end of the complainant in support of the alleged unnecessary delay in final settlement of the claim.

                Under the facts and circumstances, it is held and decided that there is no cause of action for filing this case against the OP and thereby the complainant is not entitled to get relief as prayed for.  Thus all the issues are held and decided in favour of the OP.    

               Hence,

                           It is Ordered,    

                                                    that the case be and the same is dismissed  on contest  without cost.

Dictated & Corrected by me

              

         President                                       Member                                       President

                                                                                                                  District Forum

                                                                                                               Paschim Medinipur.