This is a complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer for direction upon O.P./ Insurance Company to pay Rs.5,86,038/- for the vehicle WB-60G/5099 along with interest from the date of accident and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and deficiency in service also litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The case of the complainant in short is that the complainants are all legal heirs of Late Akshay Kumar Sarkar, who purchased the vehicle bearing registration No.WB-60G/5099. Said Akshay Kumar Sarkar also purchased the insurance policy of the said vehicle from O.P. being policy No.313501/13/2013/7341 valid from 31.12.2012 to 31.12.2013. On 11.03.2013 the vehicle met with an accident within Nabagram PS area at Murshidabad and was badly damaged. A police case was started being PS Case No.133/2013 dated 11.03.2013 U/s 279, 427 IPC. O.P. was informed the matter on 10.06.2013 in writing. Petitioner examined the vehicle to the repairing center and garages and repaired the vehicle. Thereafter petitioner submits the claim with proper estimate and document of damaged vehicle on 04.06.2013. Then surveyor of O.P./ Insurance Company conducted survey and prepared report dated 30.12.2013. At the time of repair the vehicle said Akshay Kumar Sarkar sold away the damaged car at Rs. 1,30,000/-. He handed over all the documents to the purchaser and retained verified documents. No bank loan is involved for the vehicle. On 17.07.2014 O.P. issued letter with request to supply the document then petitioner submitted all the verified documents for getting the damaged cost of the vehicle following the accident. Finally on 26.08.2014 he sent letter to O.P./ Insurance Company for getting the damaged cost, but O.P./ Insurance Company did not make any response. Petitioner therefore files this case before this Forum as the accident caused damage to the vehicle during the validity of the insurance policy and refusal of the O.P. to pay damaged amount caused the petitioner mental pain and agony for negligence in service of O.P.
O.P./ Insurance Company appeared and contested the case by filing written version, where it challenged the petition along with other grounds alleging that Akshay Kumar Saha, the owner of the vehicle violated the condition of mandatory provision of the insurance policy. That, as per the surveyor and loss assessor and valuer reports of the Insurance Company the claim amount is highly excessive, without any basis and not covered under the insurance policy. That petitioner did not submit the relevant documents about his claim to the O.P. That O.P. is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner, who violates MV Act and Rules as well as terms and conditions of the policy. That petitioner did not submits necessary documents in support of his damage claim and O.P. denies about the alleged accident and damage of the vehicle and prays for dismissal of the case.
To establish the case, the complainant has relied upon an affidavit-in-chief of Petitioner No.1 who was examined and cross examined as P.W.1 and filed photocopies of documents like Death Certificate of Akshay Kumar Sarkar, Letter of Akshay Kumar Sarkar to the Branch Manager of O.P., dated 11.03.2013, Surveyor’s Report dated 30.12.2013, Repairing Cost Estimate by S. N. Motors, dated 04.01.2013, Letter of O.P. to Akshay Sarkar dated 17.07.2014, Letter issued by present petitioners to O.P., dated 26.03.2014, Copy of Blue Book of the Vehicle No.WB-60G/5099, etc.
O.P./ Insurance Company filed examination in chief of Branch Manager, Anil Barman as O.P.W.-1 and submitted documents Xerox copy of letter dated 15.06.2015, 17.07.2014 and 28.08.2014 addressed to complainant, Surveyor’s Report dated 22.01.2014, Motor Survey Report dated 22.05.2013 and 30.12.2013.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
Giving due consideration to the contents of the complaint petition, documentary evidence on record, hearing, argument advanced by the lawyers of both sides, the Ld. Forum has come to the findings as follows: -
Petitioner No.1 has been examined as P.W.-1 and he deposed following the complaint that his father Akshay Sarkar purchased the insurance policy of the said vehicle and was owner of the vehicle and after his death all the petitioners are contesting this case on substitution. That the incident of accident and damage of the vehicle was immediately informed that after repair the said vehicle was sold away with the approval of the insurance company and all the documents were handed over to the purchaser. In cross examination he deposed that the vehicle was surveyed on the spot and afterwards by the surveyor of the company. That the sum assured was Rs.4,94,000/- approximately, which they claimed. Due to impact of the accident the resale valuation was determined as Rs.2,25,000/- that after deduction as per provision of the policy net loss was computed to the tune of Rs.2,70,000/-.
O.P. examined Branch Manager, Somnath Barman as O.P.W.-1 and in cross examination he admits that the copy of documents supplied by the complainant were all checked and verified by the company. That, for the settlement they served letter dated 27.12.2013 and after receiving same complainant also sent letter on 15.06.2015 and copies of letter were supplied that salvage as wreck value is assessed at Rs.2,25,000/- by the surveyor of the company and total claim after deduction of salvage etc. is Rs.2,70,000/-. That, complainant sold away the vehicle before the settlement of claim and therefore he is not entitled to realize any claim amount from the Insurance Company. The report of the surveyor dated 22.01.2014 was also submitted.
After hearing both sides and on perusal of evidence on record of both sides and also on perusal of documents submitted by the parties, this Forum finds that admitted position is that sum assured is Rs.4,96,624/- for the vehicle WB-60G/5099. We found the documents of registration etc. of the vehicle, which is also admitted by the O.Ps. Petitioner on affidavit submits that after repair of the vehicle it was sold away at Rs.1,30,000/- after taking approval from the O.P. Whatever may be the fact the surveyor’s report dated 22.01.2014 is also accepted by the parties. The surveyor noted that the vehicle involved in accident on 11.03.2013. Complainant informed the same in writing to the insurance company on that very date 11.03.2013. The survey report dated 30.12.2013 also proves accident and severe damage. The surveyor and loss assessor took different mode of computation of settlement and found that net on salvage basis settlement is least than the repairing and on Total Loss basis settlement. After counseling to settle the claim with insured on net on salvage value basis worth Rs.2,69,624/-, which is found economical and beneficial for the insurer in all aspects, was determined by the surveyor at Rs.2,70,000/- as Net on Salvage basis. The copy of letter dated 27.12.2013 to the O.P./ Insurance Company by the complainant goes to show that they agreed to receive the sum of Rs.2,70,000/- on Net on Salvage basis subject to retention of the salvage property in relation to the above claim. O.P. also rely this document. There is no rebuttal evidence challenging the report of the final surveyor. Therefore this Forum finds that it will be appropriate if the Insurance Company is directed to settle the claim on that basis as agreed upon. Therefore, O.P. cannot claim a further deduction of Rs.1,30,000/- from the claim amount only on the ground that the complainant stated that he sold away the vehicle with that amount.
In the light of our above discussion we can safely conclude that the petitioners have been able to prove this case and they are entitled to get relief.
Fees paid is correct. Hence, it is
ORDERED,
That the consumer complaint being No. CC-54/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest in part against O.P./ Insurance Company.
O.P./ Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.2,70,000/- as damage cost and claim amount of the vehicle No. WB-60G/5099 with 8% interest thereon from the date of accident i.e. on 11.03.2013 till realization and also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost within one month. Entire amount will be paid be paid within one month from this day, lest interest to be imposed @ 9% p.a. otherwise petitioner is at liberty to proceed with the law.
Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
