JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant obtained a commercial vehicle being policy No.510301/31/09/01/00000238 and the said policy was valid for the period 23.07.2009 to 22.07.2010 and the said policy covers risk for the vehicle being No.WB-41B-2974.  But fact remains that the said vehicle was totally burnt out along with loaded goods in a fire on 05.06.2010 at about 6:30 PM under the jurisdiction of Chandrawara Police Station in Jharkhand and as because that day was Saturday complainant could not inform the Insurance Company.

          However the complainant informed Mr Utpal Das, the Development Officer to his mobile at about 07:00 PM on the same day and the burnt vehicle was lying there and to save the salvage of the said vehicle, complainant immediately informed his staff at Patna to rush to the place of accident taking a private car on hire in the night and he arranged for posting of police officials to save the remaining salvage and as per instruction of the complainant, the staff of the complainant approached the local surveyor at Kodarmah who carried out spot survey on taking verbal permission on phone from the branch Manager at Hazaribagh in Jharkhand and subsequently arranged for removal at a separate place at Patna.

          But ultimately it was not possible for removing by towing of crane.  So, a cutter from Barahi cut some iron parts and loaded the same on another truck to keep the same in godown in Patna on hire charge so the complainant as such incurred huge expenses to save the property.  Complainant after obtaining full details of the accident wrote a letter dated 08.06.2010 to the op at P-34, Indian Exchange Place, Kolkata requesting them to hand over a claim form for completion of the formalities for assessment of the claim by the surveyor of the op and thereafter complainant submitted claim application along with all papers.

          Thereafter on receipt of the same, op informed the complainant that claim would be settled shortly and a cheque would be handed over at the earliest but thereafter complainant was informed that the driving license as submitted in the month of September, 2010 appears to be fake and accordingly the license had to be verified again and the Insurance company being a reputed concern could not verify the license between September, 2010 to the 1^st week of April, 2011 and the same was confirmed of the 5 days of the request made by the complainant.

          The surveyor has recommended deduction of Rs.25,000/- towards salvage and complainant agrees to get the cheque of the settled amount immediately but complainant did not agree to that effect because complainant incurred huge amount and suffered the loss of heavy amount.  But subsequently it was found that a deduction of Rs.40,000/- was recommended and complainant under compelling circumstances agreed to accept a cheque of Rs.3,08,500/-.

          When complainant requested the op to modify the claim op did not pay any heed to such request.  But in fact claim of the complainant was for Rs.3,50,000/- and for which complainant already made reconsideration of the payment of balance amount but no step was taken and in the above circumstances for deficiency of service and for releasing the alleged amount out that of claim amount or the insured amount complainant has prayed for payment of Rs.41,500/- along with 12% interest and other compensation etc.

          Whereas op by filing written statement has submitted that the complainant insured lately on or about first week of April, 2011 submitted the papers of vehicle including permit to substantiate his claim and thereafter on 26.04.2011 the claim as raised to the extent of total IDV amount of Rs.3,50,000/-, was settled at Rs.3,08,500/- only within the purview of the relevant insurance policy and this settlement was in continuation of the letter of agreement as issued by the complainant addressed to the Manager, Motor Hub of this op on 30.03.2011 and a payment voucher was also received by Sri Utpal Kumar Das on behalf of the complainant on 28.04.2011 which shows that the complainant has received the said amount as full and final satisfaction of the total claim what the complainant also admitted.

          Further lastly the complainant through his Ld. Lawyer Sri Swapan Kumar Chatterje dated 26.06.2012 demanded the same compensation and other costs from this op and which letter was answered back by the letter of this op dated 26.05.2012 stating specifically that the claim under question has already been settled with the insured for a settled value of Rs.3,08,500/- on 26.04.2011.  Fact remains as per policy condition, the insured is given authority to sell out the scrap and the amount so yielded by insured is deducted from the total payable sum of claim of the insured and in this case a sum of Rs.40,000/- has been deducted whereas the insured palpably agreed for Rs.30,000/- on such score but again by receiving the total assessed amount of claim which is 88% of the total IDV, the insured is estopped from making a further claim on the self-same cause of action.

          Moreover as per policy condition, salvage claim shall have also decided by the surveyor and surveyor decided it and at the same time the age factor of the vehicle was also under consideration as per contract with Insurance Company and same was also considered and rightly Rs.40,000/- was deducted.  So there was no laches or lapse on the part of the op and in the above circumstances, the complaint should be dismissed.

                                                     Decision with reasons

          On in depth study of the complaint and the written version and also considering the fact or receiving of Rs.3,08,500/- as final settlement out of claim amount of Rs.3,50,000/- by the complainant from op.  The complainant has filed this complaint for balance amount.  But fact remains that there is some value of the salvage and this surveyor assessed the salvage value as Rs.23,000/- and complainant admitted that fact and against that complainant has no complaint after surveyor’s report.

          At the same time it is proved that the vehicle was manufactured in the year 2006 and that incident took place on 05.06.2010 that is long after 4 years and as per the contract the schedule of age wise depreciation as shown below is applicable for the purpose of total loss/construction total loss in respect of claim only and in the present case, it is found that the vehicle was more than 4 years but not exceeding 5 years.  Ld. Lawyer for the op submitted that if that is the fact, then invariably further deduction ought to have been made by the Insurance Company.  But considering the loss of the insured certain amount was deducted.  But up to 50% ought to have been deducted.  But relying upon the report of the surveyor, op company forthwith released Rs.3,08,500/- out of total claim of Rs.3,50,000/-.  So, complainant has tried to collect money in respect of his cost as born by him for carrying salvage.  But that cannot be considered as per Insurance Policy and at the same time salvage cost was rightly deducted by the surveyor and other matters.

          So, as per surveyor’s report the claim was settled and complainant received the same and that is Rs.3,08,500/- and in fact the Ld. Lawyer for the op submitted that leniency was shown by the company even if the age of the commercial vehicle was within the period 4 to 5 years and Insurance Company ought to have deducted 50% depreciation value.  But that was not taken in to account but released the entire amount as given by the surveyor.  But that matter has not been properly looked into by the complainant and for collecting more money they filed this false complaint.

          After giving a intorspective thought over the entire issue and particular materials and the contract including the surveyor’s report, we have gathered that the surveyor gave much leniency to the complainant/insured and fact remains that depreciation was not decided by the surveyor.  But truth is that surveyor was aware of the fact that as per contract the depreciation value of the truck would be 50% of the total IDV as per contract.  Insurance Company ought to have deducted that.  But Insurance company gave more than admissible amount.

          So, considering the materials and the terms and conditions of the policy and age of the vehicle and also considering the report of the surveyor, we are confirmed that surveyor and the Insurance Company showed the leniency in view in this particular case and gave higher amount of compensation what that complainant was not entitled to get because as per provision of 4, the total loss as per IDV of the vehicle as on the date of incident would be 50% in view of age wise, depreciation which is applicable for the purpose of total loss or constructive loss.

          So, it is clear that complainant was actually entitled to sum of Rs.1,75,000/-.  But Insurance Company and the surveyor took a lenient view and considering the total loss granted of Rs.3,08,500/- it was no doubt very higher in nature and for which we find in determination of the settlement amount of Rs.3,08,500/- out of total claimed amount of Rs.3,50,000/- appears to us is no doubt of the higher side of compensation and that was given by the op showing some morality and humanity.

          In fact as per contract that amount, the complainant actually is not entitled to as compensation.  So, we are of view that the decision of the op was always justified and with strong foundation and for which the claim of the complainant appears to be vexatious and mala fide in nature and in fact complainant for earning more money appeared before this Forum without any reasonable and justified cause when complainant has failed to prove any sort of negligence and deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the ops.

          In the light of the above findings, complaint fails.

          Hence, it is

                                                           ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest with cost of Rs.5,000/- which would paid by the complainant to the op.