In the Court of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata, 8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087. CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 105 / 2009 1) M/s, Calcutta South Transport Company, 20, Phears Lane, Kolkata-12. ---------- Complainant ---Verses--- 1) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office-I, 10, Middleton Row, Kolkata-71. ---------- Opposite Party Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President. Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member Order No. 9 Dated 0 8 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 0 . Complainant P.K. Krishnaprasad, the proprietor of M/s. Calcutta South Transport Co. by filing a petition u/s 12 of the C.P. Act on 3.3.09 has prayed for issuing a direction upon the o.p. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. claiming Rs.52,420/- payable by the o.p. and interest @ 18% p.a. and compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost etc. Fact of the case in short is that the complainant purchased a vehicle which was registered on 13.7.07 and the said vehicle met with an accident on 18.10.07 and was damaged and the insurance package policy was valid till 17.6.08 and survey of the damage out of the accident at Chittoor, Tirupati Road was taken and the vehicle viz. the truck AP-16-TX-0553 was repaired by the company and the said company billed Rs.2,03,910/-. The o.p. reimbursed the claim of the petitioner partly instead of paying full amount of Rs.2,03,910/- deducting therein Rs.52,410/- without assigning any reasons whatsoever and completely violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and it amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the o.p. and being aggrieved the complainant sent lawyer’s notice on 23.10.08 to the o.p. claiming therein Rs.52,410/- and thereafter filed this case with the aforesaid prayer against the o.p. The o.p. has contested this case by filing a w/v, denying interalia, all the material allegations against them contending that the case is not maintainable in its form and law that the complainant is not a consumer. Specific case of the o.p. is that the surveyor assessed the loss of Rs.1,65,170/- towards the cost of damage of the vehicle by accident against the estimated cost of Rs.4,16,698.62. Accordingly, the o.p. approved the claim of Rs.1,51,500/- in full and final settlement and the o.p. issued the cheque on 24.3.08 to the insured who received the cheque and acknowledged the same without any protest. After full and final settlement the claim of the complainant cannot permitted be re-open and re-agitat in this forum and accordingly, the case is liable to be dismissed. Decision with reasons : The main points to be decided in this case are that whether the complainant is a consumer as provided u/s 2(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and whether he claim of the complainant of Rs.52,410/- is justified. Evidently, the complainant is owner of the vehicle in question bearing insurance registration no.AP-16 TX-0553 for goods carriage and the o.p. provided insurance coverage of the said vehicle and in this respect annex-A is the relevant document. It is the certificate of registration. It is not available from the record including the documents that it is used for commercial purpose. It is not also alleged in the affidavit sworn by Dilip Kr. Das on behalf of the authorized agent of o.p. that the complainant used the vehicle in question for commercial purpose. So, the o.p. could not prove that the complainant is not a consumer. Further admitted position is that the vehicle in question met with an accident and for repairing purpose the complainant on the basis of the surveyor’s report got the vehicle repaired by the authorized company M/s. Automotive Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. of Ashoke Leyland Truck Manufacturing Co. and the said company billed for Rs.2,03,910/-. The amount of repairing charge was on the basis of the surveyor’s report. We have perused the Xerox copy of the bill, annex-C, but instead of making full payment, the o.p. deducted Rs.52,410/- without assigning any reason whatsoever and against such short payment the complainant protested by sending letter vide annex-E and it is the specific grievance of the complainant that even in spite of repeated demands and request the o.p. did not make payment ofRs.52,410/- and as such, he sent lawyer’s notice vide annex-E and filed this case with the aforesaid prayer. No cogent reason whatsoever has been assigned by the o.p. for such short payment of Rs.52,410/- to the complainant. We have also perused the evidence of the complainant and all his evidence is corroborative in nature with the petition of complaint. we have also perused the cheque for Rs.1,51,500/- given to the complainant for the vehicle bearing no.AP-16 TX-0553 dt.25.3.08. Therefore, considering the facts circumstances and evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get the relief as ordered hereunder. Hence, Ordered, that the petition of complaint is allowed on contest against the o.p. The o.p. is directed to make payment of Rs.52,410/- (Rupees fifty two thousand four hundred ten) only to the complainant positively within 45 days from the date of communication of this order and the complainant do also get an award of compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only and the o.p. is directed to make grand total payment of Rs. 67,410/-(Rupees sixty seven thousand four hundred ten) only positively within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 10% p.a. till realization. Fees paid are correct. Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on payment of prescribed fees. ____Sd-______ _____Sd-______ MEMBER PRESIDENT | 
