DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DUMKA
CC No.17 of 2013
Krishna Murari………………………………….. Complainant
Vs
United India Insurance Company, Ltd, through its Branch Office, Deoghar ………OP
21.03.2015 ORDER
By filing this complaint, under the provision of The consumer Protection Act 1986, the complainant has sought relief to direct the Ops to indemnify the repairing cost amounting to Rs.79393/ to which he is said to be entitled to together with compensation of Rs.50000/ and litigation cost 5000/
Case of the complainant is that he is the owner of the vehicle No.JH04D/ 5721 which he got insured with OP vide Package Policy no 210304/31/11/01/00000589 valid and effective from 29.06.2011 to 28.06.2012. It is said that the said vehicle met with an accident on 22.10.2011 near LIC colony, Dumka causing damage to it. On information to the jurisdictional Town PS Dumka , SD Entry No.697 dated 22.10.11 was entered to. Information regarding accident was also communicated to the OP, (Insurance company) and in order to maintain safety and get it repaired, it was lifted to Baba DInanath Motor Repairing Works, Dudhani, Dumka. Thereafter several attempts were made by the complainant to get his claim settled. But the claim of the complainant for repairing cost was not settled by the OP, although all relevant papers were provided to. A pleader notice dated 07.11.2012 was also sent. But no result. Hence this complaint for the aforesaid reliefs.
The OP entered its appearance and filed its version whereby it is said that the claim of the complainant is premature as the complainant could not comply the required compliance of Procedure and Law . It is further said that the Senior Manager, U.I.I.CO. Ltd, Deoghar Branch vide letter dated 02.05.12 requested the complainant to submit owner book and Driving Licence, Bills and Cashmemo and labour charge bill within 15 days for settling the claim which the complainant failed to comply. Besides, two reminder letter dated 31.07.12 and 05.11.12 were also sent to the complainant with 15 days more time for compliance with assertion that if the required documents were not furnished it would be presumed that the complainant is not interested in the claim and the claim would be closed. In the way the deficiency or any negligency in service on the part of Op is denied. Further admitting the validity of the Policy
from 29.06.11 to 28.06.12,it is said that on information of the complainant the Surveyor Sri A.K.Jana inspected the vehicle in question and submitted his final report dated 11.02.12 assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.12,500/(twelve thousand and five hundred) only including all taxes. Refuting the claim of Rs.134393/ in the complaint petition, it is said to be entirely false, frivolous, concocted and imaginary in view of surveyors’ final assessment of loss to the tune of Rs.12500/ only. The annexed document filed with the complaint petition is said to be not genuine rather manufactured for the purpose of the case.
We have heard the parties and have gone through the record.
The issue regarding jurisdiction and exclusion from consumer dispute are although not pressed, we are of the view that the part of cause of action took place at Dumka where the alleged accident occurred and reported to the Town Police Station as per Station Diary no. 697/22.10.22 was entered to. We also are of the view that from the allegation and counter version of the OP there is disclosed a consumer dispute. Now coming to the merit of the case.
There is admitted fact that there was valid policy bearing no.210304/31/11/01/00589 in respect of the vehicle JH04D/5721 of the complainant covering the period from 29.06.11 to 28.06.12. The accident is not denid . A copy of the Sanha bearing SDEntry no.697/22.10.22 is on record to support the fact of the accident which is not denied.It is also not denied that the information of accident was given without delay. The Surveyor was appointed by the OP to assess the loss who reported it to the tune of Rs.12500/ only .
Though there is not mentioned in the complaint petition that the Surveyor deputed by the OP visited and inspected the illfated vehicle, there is indication given in the Pleader notice dated 7th November,12 that the Surveyor, Sri A.K. Jana inspected the vehicle to whom required papers were provided to( photocopy available). It is thus clear that the OP had deputed the Surveyor on information of the accident. There is copy of letter REF.No.210304/Motor Claim/0050/2012 dated 05.022012 (photocopy). It indicates that the Op had demanded Owner Book and Driving Licence, Bill Cashmemo and Labour charge bill for verification which were indicated to be not produced and the claim was communicated to be closed on that ground. There is however photocopy of letter of the complainant dated 24.05.12 (after closing the claim file of the complainant on 05.02.12) by which some memos are shown to be sent. The photocopies of the memos are attached which indicate of different workshops of different amount of charges. There is no evidence to support the genuineness of these memos (photocopies). On the other hand the admitted fact is that the OP had deputed a Surveyor namely Sri Sri A.K Jana who had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.12500/ only. We have come across the decision reported in CTJ 2009 page 790 New India Assurance CO. Ltd. Vs Pradeep Mohapatra wherein decision of the Hon’ble Nation Commission III (2008) CPJ 93 NC is cited it is held whereby that Surveyor’s report is to be given due weightage and where dispute is relating to quantum of damages-loss assessed by the surveyor is to be given due weightage as he is an independent fact finding agent. If the complaint disputes the quantum the he is free to approach the Civil Court.
The contents of the Pleader notice dated dated 7th November,12 indicates that the complainant was dissatisfied with the assessment of loss by the Surveyor Sri A.K. Jana. On the other hand we find that the Op instead of settling the claim of the complainant on the basis of surveyor’s final report as pleaded in para10 &11, put off the matter on irrelevant demands of papers which in our view is deficiency in service.
We therefore direct the OP (United India Insurance Company, Ltd.) to pay assessed loss amount Rs.12500/ (twelve thousand and five hundred)giving full weightage to the Surveyor’s admitted assessment of loss to the complainant. We also direct to pay a sum of Rs.6000/ (six thousand ) as compensation for harassment and litigation cost Rs.1000/ (one thousand )
The order shall be complied within one month from receiving the copy of this order or from the date of producing a copy thereof to the OP (United India Insurance Company, Ltd, Branch Office, Deoghar by the complainant failing which the
Complainant will be at liberty to take action u/s25 and 27 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Let free copy of the order be supplied to the parties. .
