West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/175/2016

Motibul Mallick - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

24 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President

and

Sagarika Sarkar, Member

   

Complaint Case No.175/2016

 

                  Motibul Mallick, S/O Israil Mallick, Village Bonpura,     P.O Ajoydhyanagar, P.S.     

                  Kotwali, District-Paschim  Medinipur., PIN-721150. ……………Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., At P.O. Inda, P.S. Kharagpur (T), Dist. Paschim    Medinipur, PIN-721305......……….….Opp. Party.

                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Apurba Chakraborty, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Mohanlal Das Kanungo, Advocate.

                                                 

 

Decided on: -24/05/2017

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – This is the case u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, filed by the complainant Sri Motibul Mallick against the O.P.-United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

                           Facts of the case, in brief, are that complainant purchased a vehicle being no.WB-33B/4538, a truck with financial assistance from Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and the said vehicle was duly registered under the M.V. Act on 13/3/2012.  The said vehicle was duly insured with the O.P.-Insurance Company.  On 25/02/2016, at about 4-30 Hrs.  the said truck of the complainant met with an accident within the jurisdiction of the Onda P.S. and the complainant therefore lodged a complaint at Onda

Contd………………P/2

 

 

( 2 )

P.S.  The complainant also submitted written claim as well as  verbal claim before the O.P. for getting insurance coverage due to such accident but the O.P. took no steps.  Sayan Spares (Garage), Kharagpur, gave the complainant an estimate of cost of the damaged parts amounting to Rs.9,26,800/- and other cost i.e. tyres etc will be more than Rs. 3,00,000/-. After several communication, the O.P.-Insurance Company gave the complainant a sum of Rs.4,05,495/- but the actual repairing cost  of the vehicle is more than Rs. 13,00,000/-.  It is stated that the O.P. willfully harassed the complainant.  Hence the complaint for deficiency in service praying for an order directing the O.P. to pay  claim amount of Rs.14,00,000/- and litigation cost.

                     O.P. Insurance Company has contested this case by filing a written objection.

                       Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the O.P.-Insurance Company that after the accident, O.P. received a letter with accidental claim for own damage claim in respect of the insured vehicle and the O.P. deputed a surveyor.  After final survey, report was submitted by the surveyor and the O.P. paid Rs.4,05,495/- to the complainant as final settlement.  The amount of claim of Rs.14,00,000/- as stated in the petition of complaint is totally baseless.  After receiving final settlement of claim, the complainant has filed this case falsely only with a view to harass the O.P.  It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  Hence the O.P. claims for dismissal of the petition of complaint.

                       To prove his case, the complainant has examined himself as PW-1 by tendering a written examination-in-chief, supported by affidavit and during his examination on oath, few documents were marked as exhibit 1 to 9 respectively.  On the other hand, O.P. has examined one witness namely Mr. Kausik Saha as OPW-1 and during his evidence, a survey report has been marked as exhibit-A.  During his cross-examination by the complainant, two documents were also marked as Exhibit B and B/1 respectively.

 

                                                                 Point for decision

1)Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?

2)Is the complainant a consumers of the O.P.-Insurance Company?

3)Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

4)Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?   

Decision with reasons

                 For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

Contd………………P/3

 

( 3 )

                 Maintainability of this case has not been challenged during the hearing of this case.  It appears from the pleadings of the parties that the present case is well maintainable in its’ present form and prayer.  Undisputedly,  the O.P. is the owner of the vehicle in question and his said vehicle was duly insured with the O.P.-Insurance Company.  So, the complainant is undisputedly a consumer of the O.P.  Now the question arises as to whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. in settling the claim of Insurance?

                 It is not denied and disputed that the vehicle in question met with an accident and after such accident, the complainant lodged  the claim of insurance before the O.P.-Insurance Company. It is also not denied and disputed that the O.P. –Insurance Company appointed a surveyor named Kausik Saha  and the said surveyor after making survey of the damaged vehicle,  submitted  survey report (Exhibit-A) before the O.P.-Insurance Company.  Fact also remains undisputed that after such survey, the O.P.-Insurance Company paid Rs.405495/- to the complainant.  Now the grievance of the complainant is that Sayan Spares (garage), Kharagpur  gave him an estimate of cost of parts of the damaged vehicle worth Rs.926800/-, apart from the cost of tyres etc. of Rs.3,00,000/- .  Further according to the complainant in spite of several communication, O.P.-Insurance Company gave him only Rs.405495/- but his repairing cost is more than Rs.13,00,000/- and therefore according to the complainant,  the O.P. is  guilty for deficiency in service in not paying the said amount of  Rs. 13,00,000/-.  To prove his said case, the complainant examined no competent person to say and to prove that the total cost of repairing of the damaged vehicle would be about Rs. 13,00,000/-.  Complainant has not produced any bill towards repairing cost of the vehicle to show and to prove that he incurred an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- for repairing of his damaged vehicle.  He has of course submitted  an estimate, so issued by Sayan spares (garage), Kharagpur  but mere production of estimate of repairing cost and final bill is not enough to prove that the complainant has incurred such expanses for repairing of the vehicle unless and until the same is proved by cogent evidence.  Moreover, the O.P. on the other hand, has submitted a surveyor’s report and the said surveyor was appointed by the O.P.-Insurance Company in accordance with the requirement of law as provided u/s  64-UN (2) of the Insurance Act.  The said survey report has been marked as exhibit A in this case and the said surveyor report (Exhibit-A) remained unreburted.  We find that on basis of such final survey report, the O.P. has already paid a sum of Rs.405495/- to the complainant as final settlement and therefore it cannot be held that the O.P. has any deficiency in service in settling the claim of insurance.   It is therefore held that there is no deficiency in

Contd………………P/4

 

( 4 )

service on the part of the O.P.-Insurance Company, as alleged by the complainant.  The complainant is therefore not entitled to the reliefs’ as prayed for.

                 All the points are accordingly disposed of.

                 In the result, the complaint case  fails.                          

                                           Hence, it is,

                                                   Ordered,

                    that the complaint case no.175/2016 is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

   Dictated and Corrected by me

     

 

               President                                           Member                                      President

                                                                                                                       District Forum

                                                                                                                    Paschim Medinipur