Tripura

StateCommission

A/7/2017

Sri. Raiharan Datta - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Manager-Claims, Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Co.ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Pradip Chakraborty

08 May 2017

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A. 7.2017

 

1. Sri Raiharan Datta,

S/o Late Ramesh Ch. Datta,

Resident of Chhanban,

P.O. Udaipur, P.S. R.K. Pur,

District - Gomati Tripura.

… … … … Appellant/ Complainant.

 

 

1. The Regional Manager (Claims),

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Dare House, 2^nd Floor,

2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600001.

Represented by its Branch Manager,

Having its Branch Officer at R.M.S. Chowmuhani,

Mantri Bari Road, Agartala,

P.S. West Agartala, District - West Tripura.

 

2. Sri Mani Sankar Saha,

The Authorised Signatory of

Chola MS General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Teen Sanghi, 2^nd Floor,

Akhaura Road, Agartala,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

District – West Tripura, Pin:799001.

 

3. J.K. Body Builders (Workshop)

Naga Tilla, Meherpur Road,

Silchar.

… … … … … Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

For the Appellant:                                               Mr. Pradip Chakraborty, Adv.

For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2:                            Mr. Prabal Kumar Ghosh, Adv.

For the Respondent No.3:                                    Absent.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment & Order: 08.05.2017.

J U D G M E N T/O R D E R [O R A L]

 

U.B. Saha,J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellant, Sri Raiharan Datta against the judgment dated 10.01.2017 passed by the Ld. District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala  in Case No. C.C. 42 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint case filed by the appellant. The appellant has also filed an application for condonation of delay of 15 days in preferring the appeal.  

1. Heard Mr. Pradip Chakraborty, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant (hereinafter referred to as complainant/petitioner) as well as Mr. Prabal Kumar Ghosh, Ld. Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent nos.1 & 2 (hereinafter referred to as opposite party nos.1 & 2).
2. We have considered the reasons for delay as explained in the condonation petition. According to us, the reasons for delay have been properly explained and accordingly, the delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. As agreed to by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties and the District Forum record has already been received, the appeal is taken up for final disposal at this admission stage itself.
3. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The appellant-complainant filed an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the Ld. District Forum alleging that on 07.10.2015 at 11:45 p.m. his vehicle met with an accident and was badly damaged. So, he had made a claim to the respondent-Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as opposite party) and thereafter, his claim was finally settled at Rs.3 lacs, but the opposite party paid Rs.1,78,620/-. Due to non-payment of the settled amount, complainant could not take delivery of the vehicle and pay the workshop charge amounting to Rs.300/- per day. Due to non-plying of the vehicle, complainant-petitioner also suffered Rs.3000/- per day. After final settlement, the claimed amount was not paid. As a result, he suffered huge loss. In the claim petition, he prayed for an amount of Rs.7,27,620/-.

The respondent-opposite party, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. appeared and filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that the claim was settled between the Insurance Company and the complainant-petitioner at Rs.3 lacs and out of which, Rs.1,78,620/- was paid to the financier of the vehicle i.e. Indusind Bank and the rest amount of Rs.1,21,380/- was paid to the complainant-petitioner. It is also contended that once the claim was finally settled and the petitioner was at liberty to take the vehicle from the workshop and ply it. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is wholly baseless.

 

4. Mr. Chakraborty, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that admittedly, the claim of the appellant-petitioner was settled at Rs.3 lacs, but the opposite party Insurer did not pay the entire amount to the appellant-complainant, but an amount of Rs.1,78,620/- was paid to the financier Bank which is against the terms of settlement as the Insurance Company is liable to pay the EMI installment as per policy.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Ghosh, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent-opposite party Insurance Company while supporting the impugned judgment would contend that the Ld. District Forum did not commit any wrong dismissing the complaint case. He further submits that as per terms of policy, EMI installment regarding loan taken by the complainant-petitioner is to be paid by the Insurance Company to the financier, Indusind Bank and admittedly, the dispute between the appellant i.e. the complainant-petitioner and the respondent-Insurance Company was full and finally settled at Rs.3 lacs and out of which, Rs.1,78,620/- was paid to the financier Bank as EMI as per the terms of the policy and the rest amount of Rs.1,21,380/- was paid to the complainant-petitioner. Thus, there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Insurance Company and the complaint case filed by the complainant-petitioner is also not maintainable after full and final settlement of the claim raised by the complainant-petitioner.
6. We have gone through the findings of the Ld. District Forum which is as follows:-

“From the para 3 of the petition it is found that claim was settled at Rs.3 lakhs and opposite party insurer paid the complainant amount of Rs.1,21,380/- and Rs.1,78,620/- was paid to the bank by O.P. directly on 30.12.15 as EMI installment. It is also stated that as per terms of the policy O.P. insurer is to make payment of EMI regularly. From the para 3 it is clear that O.P. was under obligation to pay the EMI to the financier Indus Bank. We have gone through the statement of account of the Indus Bank. From perusal of the statement on account it is found that on 30.12.15 Cholamandalam Insurance Company paid Rs.1,78,620/- to the Indus Bank financier. Accordingly, it was paid. Rest Rs.1,21,380/- of the settled amount of Rs.3 lakhs was paid to the complainant as admitted. So it is clear that Rs.3 lakhs was paid as per final settlement. Petitioner claimed additional Rs.3000/- as the vehicle did not ply when it was in the workshop under maintenance. No papers submitted to support that in the final settlement such provision for paying the amount of Rs.3000/- per day & also workshop charge Rs.300/- per day was incorporated. In the policy certificate also there is no such provision that after damage of the vehicle petitioner is entitled to get the workshop charge and the loss sustained for non plying of the vehicle, during the period of repairing. In the ‘Own damage’ Clause of the policy nothing written about the payment for workshop charge and non plying loss of the vehicle. The claim was finally settled between the parties for Rs.3 lakhs as repairing charge and accordingly the amount of Rs.3 lakhs was paid. Petitioner can not claim extra amount out of settlement. It is found that Rs.3 lakhs paid and petitioner is not entitled to get any more compensation out of final settlement. Both the points are decided accordingly.”

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that once the matter was settled between the parties, then appellant-complainant has no right to come for any deficiency of service against the opposite party-Insurance Company. According to us, the finding of the Ld. District Forum is not only just and proper, but also reasonable. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment.    

In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura MEMBER State Commission Tripura PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura