Tripura

West Tripura

CC/42/2016

Sri Raiharan Datta. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Mr.S.Chakraborty, Mr.P.Chakraborty.

10 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC-  42 of 2016 

Raiharan Datta,
S/O- Late Ramesh Ch. Datta,
Chhanban, P.O. Udaipur,
P.S. R.K. Pur, 
District- Gomati, Tripura.                ..…..…...Complainants.

          VERSUS

1. The Regional Manager-Claims,
Cholamandalam M/S General Insurance Co.Ltd.
Dare House, 2nd Floor, 
2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai- 600001.

2. Sri Mani Sankar Saha,
The Authorize Signatory of
Chola M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Teen Sanghi, 2nd floor,
Akhaura Road, Agartala,
P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,
District- West Tripura- 799001.

3. J.K. Body Builders (Workshop),
Naga Tilla, Meharpur Road,
Silchar.                             ............Opposite parties.

          __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant    : Sri Pradip Chakraborty,
                      Sri Sujit Chakraborty,
                      Advocates.
                     
    For the O.P.             : Smt. Paramita Roy,
                      Sri Debjoy Majumder,
                      Advocates.

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 10.01.2017

J U D G M E N T

        This case  arises on the petition filed by Raiharan Datta. Petitioner's case in short is that on 07.10.15 at 11.45 P.M. the vehicle of the complainant met accident and badly damaged. On the basis of the claim of the complainant O.P. Insurance company settled the claim. The claim was finally settled for Rs.3 lakhs. But the O.P. paid Rs.1,78,620/-. Due to non payment of the settled amount complainant could not take delivery of the vehicle and paying the workshop charge Rs.300/- per day.  Due to non plying of the vehicle also petitioner suffered Rs.3,000/- per day. After final settlement the claimed amount not paid. As a result petitioner suffered huge loss. Claimed total Rs.7,27,620/-. 
        O.P. Cholamandalam M/S General Insurance company appeared and filed W.S denying the claim. It is stated that the claim was settled at Rs.3 lakhs. And out of that Rs.1,78,620/- was paid with the financier of the vehicle. The rest amount was paid to the petitioner. Rs.1,78,620/- was paid to the financier and rest Rs. 1,21,380/- was paid to Petitioner. Thus the claim was settled and petitioner was at liberty to take the vehicle from the workshop and ply it. The claim of the petitioner is therefore baseless.  
        Petitioner side produced the policy certificate, FIR, endorsement settled, final reminder, statement of account of Indus Bank the financier. Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of one witness i.e., the petitioner Raiharan Datta. 
        O.P. on the other hand  O.P. produced no evidence. 
        On the basis of evidence on record we shall now determine the following points;
        (I) Whether the final settled amount Rs.3 lakhs not paid to the petitioner?
        (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation as claimed for deficiency of service?
            Findings and decision;
        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 our above findings we find that there was no deficiency of service by the O.P. and petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation. Petitioner's case is therefore dismissed. No cost given.

                       Announced.

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.