West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/90/2011

Dil Mahammad Gayen - Complainant(s)

Versus

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

10 Sep 2012

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

Complaint case No. 90/2011                                              Date of disposal: 10/09/2012                               

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

                                                     MEMBER : 

                                                     MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

 

For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. M. Mahata Advocate

For the Defendant/O.P.S.                          : Mr. P. Ghosh & S. Guin Advocate

       Dil Mahammad Gayen, S/o-Moinudin Geyen Vill-Sukuatore, P.O. Degri, P.S.

       Garhbeta, Dist-Paschim Medinipur………….Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office- National Insurance Building, 1^st Floor, 8 India Place, Kolkata -1 and Branch Office at Vill. Inda, P.O. & P.S. Kharagpur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur.
2. Magma Finance Corporation Ltd.  24 Park Street, Kolkata – 16 and Branch Office at Allahabad Bank Building ( 2^nd Floor) , Vill-Inda, P.O. & P.S. Kharagpur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur…………………………….Ops.

                         The case of the complainant, unnecessary details apart, is as follows:-

                         The complainant Dil Mahammad Gayen filed this case claiming Rs.2,57,950/- towards cost of replacement of parts  and labour and other charges, from the Op No.1.

                        The petitioners contended, inter alia, that he is the owner of Truck No.WB33A-5838 which was purchased by him with the financial help of the Op No.2.  The vehicle was under the coverage of insurance policy with the Op No.1. The said vehicle met with an accident on 2/8/10 on NH-60 under Rupsa P.S., District Balasore, Orissa.  The vehicle got severely damaged in the accident.  The complainant lodged claim for damage to the Op No.1 when the assessor of Op No.1 assessed the claim and advised the complainant to take estimate from the authorized service station of commercial vehicle division of Tata Motor and accordingly the assessment was taken which was to the extent of Rs.1, 99,950/- subject to 15% depreciation on metal parts and 50% depreciation of rabber parts.  Vide letter dated 23/12/2010 the Op No.1 informed the complainant about the discrepancy in the D.L. particulars of driver Sanatan Ghosh.

                                                                                                                                                                                Contd………P/2

 

                                                                                                      -  (  2  )  -

Thereafter the complainant made scrutiny of D.L. of Sanatan Ghosh and found that in the Column of D.L. No.16611 was pen through and on the top of the D.L. the No. was written as 17611.  Thereafter the complainant got the number verified from the M.V. department, Paschim Medinipur and it was found that the D.L. No. of the driver Sanatan Ghosh was correctly mentioned as 17611.  But on the ground that the D.L. No. 16611 was written initially in the D.L. of Sanatan Ghosh which number belongs to some other person, the Op No.1 repudiated the claim.

Hence this case.

                        The Op Nos.1&2 contested the case by filing separate W/Os. In this case, the claim is against the Op No.1.  The Op No.2 was the financial of the vehicle.  In his written statement the Op No.2 mentioned about the terms and conditions of loan taken by the complainant for the purchase of the vehicle and the incident relating to the loan.  No claim has been made by the complainant against the Op No.2 and in fact the W/O of the OP No.2 is not much relevant in this case.

                        The Op No.1 in its  W/O admitted  that the vehicle in question bearing No.WB33A-5838 was under the coverage of insurance policy with the Op No.1 on the date of its accident.  The main dispute raised by the Op No.1 appears to be the D.L. number.  While according to the complainant the driver of the vehicle in question was Sanatan Ghosh having D.L. No.17611, the Op No.1 contended that in the claim form the D.L. number of driver Sanatan Ghosh was mentioned as 16611 which belong to one Suvash Maity.  So, the Op No.1 repudiated the claim on the ground of non furnishing proper particulars by the complainant.

                       It is now for our consideration, as to whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as claimed and if so, to what extent?

                                                    Decisions with Reasons:

                       In this case, the claim is against the Op No.1.  The Op No.2 has been impleaded as a party simply for the reason that the vehicle in question was purchased with the financial assistance of the Op No.2 and the vehicle is hypothecated with the Op No.2.

                      Everything in this case is admitted safe and except the D.L. Number.  The root cause of dispute was the D.L. No.  The documents filed by the parties show that in the D.L. of driver Sanatan Ghosh who was running the vehicle at the time of incident the No 16611 was scored through and a fresh number being 17611 was written on the top of the D.L.  Possibly due to such reason the complainant in the claim application filed with the Op No.1 after the accident, mentioned the D.L. No. of driver Sanatan Ghosh as 16611 in stead of 17611.  Such mention of D.L. No. In the claim application led the Op No.1 to repudiate the claim.  The reason                                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                                                                                  Contd………P/3

                                                                                                          -  (  3  )  -

for repudiation having been to the knowledge of the complainant, he contacted the motor vehicles department of Paschim Medinipur  and obtained a certificate which indicates that the D.L. No.17611 stands in the name of Sanatan Ghosh while the documents on record goes to show  that the said M.V. department has issued another certificate to the effect that the D.L. No 16611 stands in the name of one Suvash Maity.  Therefore, it is clear that D.L. No.17611 stands in the name of Sanatan Ghosh and the confusion and dispute arose due to wrong mention of D.L. No. in the claim application by the complainant.  Moreover, the documents on record further show that after the accident on case was registered by the Rupsa P.S. being case No.43 dt. 2/8/10 and in that case the documents of the vehicle and the D.L. of the driver was seized.  In that seizure list also the D.L. No. of driver Sanatan Ghosh was mentioned as 17611.  Therefore, upon consideration of these circumstances and the documents on record there should not be any least hesitation to say that the Sanatan Ghosh who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was having his D.L. No.17611 which D.L. was a valid one.  Being misled by the number given by the complainant in the claim application after the accident, the Op No.1 repudiated the claim on the ground of improper and in correct information.  We have already found that all other points in this case are admitted.

                    Now, the complainant has claimed Rs.1,99,950/- towards cost of parts and Rs.58 000/- towards labour charges, the total amount being Rs.2, 57,950/-.  However, during the time of hearing of this case on 21/6/12 the complainant filed an application to the effect that without going into the merit of the case he has no objection if he is allowed 50% o of the claim made by him.

                   Now, the W/O of the Op No.1 shows that the complainant was asked to take estimate from the authorized service station of Tata Motor.  The complainant has furnished tax invoice showing repair of the vehicle by Dey Motors, an authorized service station commercial vehicle of Tata Motors.  The said tax invoice shows that in all the cost of repair including replacement of parts and labour charges was Rs.1,99.950/-.  Although, the complainant has claimed the labour charges separately but from the said in tax invoice it appears that the amount of Rs.1,99,950/- includes  the labour charges.                                                                                                                         

                   We find that the claim of the complainant as made in the application on 21/6/12 before this Forum for allowing sum 50% of the total cost is very modest one and upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the entire materials on record, we are inclined to allow the same.  Therefore, we are of the considered view that the complainant should be allowed a sum of Rs.1, lakh towards cost of repair of vehicle and labour charges.  Apart from that, the complainant should be allowed compensation and litigation cost of Rs.10, 000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively.                                                                                                                                                                                  

                                    Contd……….P/4

 

- (4)-

                               Hence,

                                            Ordered

                                                         that the case be allowed on contest the Op No.1 is hereby directed to pay Rs.1 lakh to the complainant towards cost of repair of the vehicle bearing No.WB33A-5838.    The Op No.1 is further directed to pay to the complainant, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation cost.  All such payments shall be made by the Op. No.1 within 45 days from this date in default the entire amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. till realization of the entire claim amount.

Dic.& Corrected by me

                                                                        I agree

 

            President                                           Member                              President

                                                                                                            District Forum

                                                                                                         Paschim Medinipur.