West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/83/2016

Sri Nirmal Kumar Jana - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Somasish Panda

17 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

Bibekananda Pramanik, President

and

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member

 

Complaint Case No.83/2016

 

Sri Nirmal Kumar Jana, S/o-Dinesh Jana, Vill-Sunia,

P.O. & P.S.-Egra, Dist-Paschim Medinipur…..….………Complainant

Versus

The Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

 Library Road (BatatalaChack), P.O.-Midnapore, P.S.-Kotwali,

Dist-Paschim Medinipur………….Op.

 

 For the Complainant:  Mr. Somasish Panda, Advocate.

 For the O.P.             :  Mr. Mohanlal Das Kanango, Advocate.                         

 

                                                 Decided on: - 17/05/2017                             

Mr. Pulak Kumar Singha, Member : The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant is the owner of Maruti Omni being no.WB-33C/3520 and said vehicle was insured with the OP vide policy no.0317013115P100070884 valid from 11/04/2015 to 10/04/2016.  The said vehicle met with an accident on 23/04/2015 and badly damaged.  Matter was intimated at Kharagpur Local P.S. and case has started by the concerned police station.  Complainant also intimated the matter of accident to the OP and also submitted all required documents.  OP has deputed surveyor who investigated the damaged car and assessed the loss but OP has repudiated the claim.  So, the complainant appears before this Forum for getting redressal as per prayer of his complaint.

                Op contested the case by filing w/o denying the allegations of complainant stating inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable, there is a contradictory statement regarding mode and manner of accident, OP has no deficiency of service and prayed for

Contd……………….P/2

 

( 2 )

dismissal of complaint.

 

Points for decision :

                                      Whether the complaint is maintainable ?

                                      Whether Op. is deficient of service ?

                                      Whether complainant is entitle to get relief as prayed for?

 

Decisions with Reasons

               All the points are taken together for the sake of convenience and brevity. It appears from the case record that complainant did not adduce any evidence rather OP adduced  two witnesses with some documents which are marked exhibit A and X for identification series.  It is admitted fact that the vehicle in question met with an accident and during that period insurance policy was valid with own damage cover of the subject vehicle.  From the deposition of OPW-1, surveyor  & loss assessor, it reveals that said surveyor inspected the damaged vehicle on 12^th  June  and 19^th  June, 2015 and assessed the loss and submitted report to the O.P. which is marked exhibit –A and  photographs, letters are also marked exhibit X series.  The said surveyor deposed that he did not find any damage in the front position of the vehicle but damages were only on the back side of the vehicle.  In cross-examination OPW-1 admitted that as per rules, he prepared his report and assessed an amount  of loss of damage. It appears from OPW-2 who is relative of the deceased person who was in the vehicle, had no personal knowledge about the accident rather he signed the F.I.R. as per instruction of police  of concerned police station.  OPW-2 was also cross-examined  by complainant.  From the survey report which is marked exhibit-A, appears that surveyor assessed net loss Rs.75,800/- after deduction as per rules of insurance guide line.

              We find  from the photographs and acceptance note of the surveyor that front glass, front glass rubber, front bumper, right head light grill, right head light. Roof lining, front door etc.  were also damaged.  Op disputes only mode and manner of accident as in the F.I.R. it has written that vehicle in question was damaged on the back side but complainant stated that driver of Maruti van dashed in the back side on the truck for which front portion of the Maruti van sustained damaged only such fact of the case Op has repudiated the claim.  Though witness OPW-2 Maheswar Pradhan , said in his deposition that one police officer wrote the contents of F.I.R. and I signed only thereon.  At the

 

Contd……………….P/3

 

( 3 )

instance of said police officer and as I was mentally depressed so I could not read over the contended of F.I.R. and said witness was also not the eye witness of the occurrence.

                  Moreover in case of own damage of the vehicle it should not be the main criteria that claim shall be settled depends upon the mode and manner of accident.  In the documents it reveals that at the time of accident the subject vehicle Maruti van was capsized.  So, along with back side, front portion and other portion i.e. root of the vehicle were also damaged and it reflects in the acceptance report of surveyor and in the final report surveyor mentioned that complete body shell found bend/damaged due to the accident. Complainant claimed that estimated cost of repair of damaged vehicle of Rs.1,97,272/- but no final bill of repairing cost has not been submitted by the complainant.  So, it cannot be said that such amount has been spent by the complainant.  Surveyor assessed actual loss and recommended Rs.75,800/- in his final report after deduction as per rules of  insurance policy condition.  But the O.P. neither denied nor disputes regarding the amount of compensation.  O.P. only disputes the mode and manner of accident and only that ground the claim is repudiated.  In case of own damage claim mode and manner of accident cannot be the stand point of assessment and allowed the claim.  It appears from the documents that complainant intimated and submitted required documents to the O.P. but O.P. harassed the complainant for long time and lastly repudiated the claim at his own accord and for such act complainant suffered mental pain, agony and sustained monitory loss.  For such act  Op is negligent and deficient of service as a service provider.  We find this case is maintainable, deficiency of service of Op is proved and for that complainant is entitled to get relief.

               In view of the discussions here in before we think that on the ground of mode and manner of accident the repudiation of claim is not justified so, complainant should get redressal as prayed for.

              Complaint case succeeds.

 

                                        Hence, it is,

                                                        ORDERED,

             That the complaint case be and the same is allowed with cost of Rs.5000/-.

 O.P. is directed to pay Rs.75,800/- as cost for repair of the damaged vehicle  with interest @ 8% from the date of filing of this case and to pay Rs.10,000/- compensation for

 

 

Contd……………….P/4

 

( 4 )

 

harassment, mental pain and monitory loss to the complainant within one month from the date of order.

                    Failure to comply the order O.P. shall be liable to pay Rs.10,000/- penal damage per month to be paid to this Forum till full realization. 

Dictated and Corrected by me.

         Sd/- P.K. Singha                                                   Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

             Member                                                                 President

                                                                                      District Forum

                                                                                   Paschim Medinipur