The instant case was instituted on the basis of a petition under Section 12 filed by one Mansan Roy, S/o.- Jalauddin Roy resident of village Thanapara, Gachinagar P.O & P.S- Goalpokher, dist. Uttar Dinajpur which was registered as Consumer Case No. 33/18 in this Forum.

The fact of the case is that the complainant (Mansan Roy) is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No- W.B. 92 A/6380(motor cycle) and the said vehicle was insured with the opposite party that is Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd and the policy was valid from 10/08/2017 to 09/08/2018 bearing policy no is 151751723120052630.

The annual premium was Rs.653/-(Six hundred and fifty three) covering the own damage of the vehicle.

The said vehicle met with an accident on 01-01-2018 at Kulavita under the Goalpokher Police Station and by that accident none was injured but the said vehicle was badly damaged.

After the accident the complainant lodged a written complaint before the Goalpokher Police Station being G.D No-103 dated.-04/01/2018.

Due to the incident the complainant incurred a cost of Rs.20,000/-(Twenty thousand) for repairing his vehicle at Sunny Honda, Islampur and the complainant claimed the same amount from the opposite party which was repudiated by the O.P on 09/03/2018.

The complainant is entitled to get the said amount. Due to negligence and latches on the part of the opposite party, the complainant was depriving of getting the amount. So, the opposite party should pay the said amount of the complainant for repairing the vehicle.

So, the complainant has claimed Rs.20,000/-(Twenty thousand) along with @ 9% per annum to the final payment, litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand) and Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand) for compensations.

The petition has been contested by the O.Ps by filing the W.V denying all the material allegations as labeled against them contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable and the petition is barred by mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties.

The definite defence case is that the O.P Insurance Company does not admit or denies that the vehicle was insured with the opposite party.  The further defnce case is that after the accident none was injured but the vehicle was badly damaged.

The O.P does not admit and denies that the complainant also requested to the O.P over telephone on 05/01/2018 and in writing on 01/03/2018 for payment of said claim but the O.P Insurance Company refused the same, so considering such facts and circumstances that the instant case is liable to be dismissed. In order to prove the case the complainant has filed the documents as per firisti.

During trial the complainant Mansan Roy was himself examined as PW1 and he was cross examined. No other witness was examined on behalf of the Complainant. Though, the O.P did not adduce any evidence to their defence.

Now the point for determination as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation from this forum or not?

               D E C I S I O N   W I T H   R E A S O N S

 At the time of argument the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant argued that the complainant (Mansan Roy) is the owner of the vehicle and the said vehicle was insured with the O.P Insurance Company and during the period of Insurance policy the said vehicle met with an accident for which the complainant had to incur a cost of Rs.20,000/-(Twenty thousand) for repairing of the vehicle. So, the complainant is entitled to get the same amount. On the other hand the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P argued that the matter was not informed to the Insurance Company. Unless and until it is informed by the complainant about the incident how the insurance company will assess the loss by appointing any surveyor. In reply the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant submitted that the complainant informed the matter to the Police Station and also informed the matter to the agent of the company and also informed the matter to the Insurance Company. In this regard the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant has filed a copy showing that the matter was informed to the Goalpokher police Station on 04/01/2018 and the complainant also informed the matter to the O.P Insurance Company on 01/03/2018. So, the argument raised by the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P argued that the matter was not informed to the Insurance Company is not at all believable. On perusal of the document filed by the complainant it is found that the vehicle was repaired at Sunny Honda and money receipt was filed. On perusal of the money receipt it is found that the complainant paid Rs.12400/-(Twelve thousand and four hundred) for repairing of the damage vehicle as well as the complainant paid Rs.4500/-(Four thousand and five hundred) to the Speed Tyres. So, the complainant expends Rs.16900/-(Sixteen thousand and nine hundred) and the complainant is also entitled to get the amount. The Ld. Lawyer of the O.P argued that the matter was not informed to the Insurance Company, so the Insurance Company repudiated the matter. But mere non lodging of information to the Insurance Company is not a good ground for repudiation the claim to the complainant as and when the complainant informed the matter to the Police Station and it is the duty to the Police station to inform the matter to the Insurance Company under the Motor Vehicle Act. Moreover, in the present case it is found that the complainant informed the matter to the Insurance Company on 01-03-2018 though after the lapse of two months. So, there was latches on the part of the complainant to inform the matter. For this reason the claim cannot be repudiated. Considering such facts and circumstances that the vehicle in question was insured with the opposite party at the time of accident and on perusal of the record it is found that the complainant expend Rs.16900/-(Sixteen thousand and nine hundred) for repairing of the vehicle. So, the complainant is entitled to get the amount. Besides that the complainant entitled to get compensations for metal pain and agony as well as litigation cost.

 C.F. paid is correct.

 Hence, it is,               

                                O R D E R E D

That the instant case being No.- C.C- 33/18 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps.

The complainant gets Rs.16900/-(Sixteen thousand and nine hundred) for repairing of the vehicle, Rs.1000/-(One thousand) for mental pain and agony and Rs.500/-(Five hundred) for litigation cost and the total amount comes to Rs.18400/-(Eighteen thousand and four hundred). The O.Ps are directed to pay the amount within 45 (forty five) days from the date of order failing which it will carry interest @ 5% per annum from the date of default. The complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per provision of law in case of default of payment by the O.Ps.

Let a free certified free copy of this order be given to the parties on application.