OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C. No. 17/07
Present:-
1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2)Smti Archana Deka Lahkar - Member
3)Md Jamatul Islam - Member
Sri Sanjay Kr.Jain - Complainant
Son of Late Budhmal Jain,
Chhaatribari , Guwahati,
Having his place of business at
C/O Oriental Paper Products, S.R.C.B.Road,
Fancy Bazar, P.O.Guwahati-781001,Assam
-vs-
United India Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.parties
Anuradha Complex, 1st Floor, Bamunimaidan,
P.O. Guwahati-781021, Assam
Appearance-
Learned advocates Mr.Rohi Gaur for the complainant and Ld.advocate Ms.Manashi Sarma Baruah for the opp.party
Date of argument- 12.6.18
Date of judgment- 21.6.18
JUDGMENT
This is a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1) The complaint filed by Sri Sanjoy Kr.Jain against United India Insurance Co.Ltd. was admitted on 23.2.2007 and notices was sent to the opp.party and opp.party also filed written statement on 28.12.2007. The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit on 21.10.2008 and he was cross examined by the opp.party side on 3.8.1, and thereafter the opp.party side filed evidence of one, Sri Hormohan Baishya and he was cross examined by the complainant side on 9.10.15. Thereafter, both parties are allowed to file their written argument and on the day of 12.6.18 has been fixed for filing written argument, but Ld.counsel of the party only filed written argument, but the Ld. Counsels of both the parties forwarded their oral argument on 12.6.18 and today we deliver the judgment which is as follows-
2) The pleading of the complainant is that while, the Maruti Van of the complainant vide registration No. AS- 01-H-1457, Engine No.1863999 and Chesis No. 326117, which was insured with opp.party vide policy No. 13020531050100000507 effective from 21.6.2005 to 20.6.06 was parked on 3.4.2006 at S.R.C.B.Road , Fancy Bazar (Guwahati) and then a Tata vehicle hit his van causing extensive damage to it, and he reported the matter Fancy Bazar Police Out Post vide letter dtd. 4.4.2006 and also intimated the matter to the opp.party and took the vehicle to a garage for repairing and the garage submitted an estimate of repairing and then he took the vehicle to M/S North East Maruti Engineering Works , Bharalumukh, Guwahati and they submitted estimated amounting to Rs.66,640/- as repairing cost including cost of parts to be replaced, and then he, vide letter dtd. 4.4.2006, submitted the said estimate to the opp.parties. The vehicle was repaired by M/S North East Maruti Engineering Works, he, vide letter dtd. 22.4.2006, submitted the cash-memo of spare parts as well as bills of repairing charge etc. amounting to Rs.69,879/- to the opp.party and also requested them to inspect the vehicle after repairing. The opp.party verbally asked him to take delivery of the repaired vehicle from the work-shop. The opp.party issued settlement intimation to him which was at Rs.12,000/- only and asked him to sign of her settlement voucher against his claim of Rs.69,879/- and he vide letter dtd.8.9.06 intimated the opp.party about unacceptability, but the opp.party refused to pay his actual expenditure insisting on their settlement at Rs.12,000/-, and thereafter, he requested repeatedly opp.party to pay him the actual cost of the repairing. The opp.party, without assigning any reasons, illegally settled the claim at Rs.12,000/-. At the time of estimating the repairing cost, the opp.party never raised any objection to the estimate of repairing cost; and now they cannot allowed to go back from their own commitment, and therefore, they are liable to pay the entire amount of cost of repairing which is Rs.69,879/- with interest at the rate 12% per annum 27.4.2006 and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for causing harassment to him alongwith cost of the proceeding.
3) The pleading for opp.party is that there is no cause of action for filing the complaint. The vehicle of the complainant covered under private car package by the said policy which was valid from 12.6.2005 to 11.6.2006 and as per Sec.I (IV) of the terms and condition of the policy the opp.party will indemnify the insured against loss or damage to the vehicle by accident external means subject to deduction on the rate-
i) For all rubber / nylon / plastic parts, tyres and
tubes, batteries and air bags - 50%
ii) For fiber glass components - 30%
iii) For all parts made of glass - nil
iv) Rate of depreciation for all other
parts including wooden parts will be
as per the following schedule of depreciation and value of the parts
Age of the vehicle % of depreciation
Exceeding 6 months Nil
Exceeding 6 but not exceeding 1 year 5%
1 year 2 year 10%
2 year 3 year 14 %
3 year 4 year 25%
4 year 5 year 35%
5 year 10 year 40%
10 years 50%
The vehicle of the complainant was six years old and that is why depreciation of 50% for rubber items and 40% metallic items in case of partial damage claim. On 4.4.06 the complainant filed own damage claim and requested them to send surveyor to inspect the vehicle and they also asked him to take the vehicle to a garage for repairing, but they never promised to indemnify the insured beyond terms and condition of the policy and they appointed surveyor, Sri Pranjal Bhagawati who surveyed it on 5.4.2006 and submitted his report on 4.8.06 and he assessed the loss at Rs.12,861’14/-; and after deduction for salvage and other, the amount come lower and hence they offered Rs.12,000/- as full and final settlement and sent the offer to the complainant. They had not made any promise to pay the estimated cost of Rs.69,879/-, nor admitted that estimated cost of repairing is Rs.69,879/-,but informed the complainant that they would indemnify him as per the terms and condition of the policy. As the complainant refused to accept their offer of settlement, the matter is not settled till today and as such there is no laches, negligence and deficiency in service on their part. The amount claimed by the complainant in different heads are highly rate exaggerated rate and found to be fabricated, and as such claim is not bonafide one. The complainant alleged damages of some external and internal parts like Instrumental Panel, Speedometre Assey, Cable Assy Speedometre, Motor Assy, Wiper, Arm Assay, Blade Assy, Link Assy Winshield, Strut Assy, Suspension RH, Arm Assy Fr, Suspension, Member Fr.Cross, Bush Str.Centre, End Tie Rod Front Bumper Bracket, Bar rear Bumper etc.which were not consistent with the nature and cause of the accident and therefore neither replacement nor repairing is recommended. So far Panel Assy front is concerned , damage of the same was within the scope of safe and economical repairing and hence the surveyor recommended for repairing the same in spreed of replacement. As per terms and condition the painting through the accidental portion only can be done and the surveyor has recommended the same. Considering all these things, the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.12,861.14/- which is just and reasonable; and that is why they offered an amount of Rs.12,000/- as full and final settlement of the claim. The complainant is liable to follow all the terms and condition of the policy and he has also agreed with the terms and conditions of the policy and now neither they nor the complainant can go beyond the terms and condition of the policy and they cannot pay any cost beyond the assessment made by the surveyor. As the offer is not accepted by the complainant which is just and illegal, they failed to settle the claim till today and non-settlement of the claim is due to the negligence of the complainant and as such they have not committed any deficiency towards the complainant for that reason, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. This forum has no jurisdiction to try this matter and it is triable by the civil court and on that ground also the complaint is also liable to be dismissed.
3) We have perused the pleading as well as evidence of the parties . We have also perused argument of both sides’ Ld.counsels. We have found that both sides admit that the Maruti Omni Van registration No. AS- 01-H-1457, Engine No.1863999 and Chesis No. 326117 belong to the complainant, Sri S.K.Jain was insured with the opp.party namely United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,Guwahati branch, vide policy No. 13020531050100000507 which was effective from 21.6.2005 to 20.6.06 was on 3.4.2006 , met with an accident on 3.4.2006 while it was parked at S.R.C.B.Road, Panbazar,Guwahati, on the striking and hitting by another Tata vehicle and in result it sustained some damage and the matter was informed to the police by the complainant and to the opp.party by the complainant; and on the consent of the opp.party the vehicle was brought to M/S North Eastern Maruti Engineering Works , K.R.C.Bharalumulh, Guwahati for repairing and it was repaired and after repairing, the vehicle was surveyed by the opp.party through their surveyor and the surveyor of the opp.party submitted his report to the opp.party which is Ex.C and he assessed the damage of the vehicle at Rs. 12,861.14/- and the opp.party after receipt of the surveyor report settled the claim of the complainant at Rs.12,000/- and sent voucher to the complainant which the complainant did not sign and returned back to the opp.partyl
i)In this case, the moot question is what was the extension of damage sustained by the said vehicle ; and what amount was spent by the complainant in repairing the said vehicle ?
ii) It is both sides’ admitted fact that before repairing the vehicle, the complainant got the vehicle examined through the garage and got the estimate of repairing cost, which isamounting to Rs.50,640/-; and copy of the said estimate was sent to the opp.party by the complainant vide letter dtd. 4.4.06 (Ex.3) and they also received the said letter and estimate, but they did not object to the estimate but said that they would pay damages as per terms and conditions of the policy.
From evidence it is found that the opp.party got the vehicle surveyed through their surveyor Mr.Pranjal Bhagawati after repairing of the vehicle, and he inspected the vehicle on 4.4.2006 and submitted his report on 2.8.2006 and he valued the loss to the tune of Rs.12,861/-. Ex.B is the said surveyor report. It is found that after filing this survey report the complainant side has not lodged any objection against the said survey report, nor filed any prayer to the opp.party to appoint another surveyor to survey the vehicle again. Thus, it is crystal clear that, the complainant side did not have any objection against the loss assessed by the surveyor, Pranjal Bhagawati through his survey done on 4.4.2006 and report submitted on 2.8.2006. Therefore, it is found that, the survey report as well as the loss assessed by the surveyor which is Rs.12,861.14/- remain unobjected by the complainant side. Therefore, this assessment shall have to be accepted. In this case, the complainant side states that he has spent Rs.69,879/- in repairing his vehicle and in support of his claim he has exhibited certain vouchers vide Ex.4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 , but authors of the said documents were not examined by the complainant to prove genuineness of the expenditure mentioned in the said documents. In the cross-examination, the complainant states that he has not cited any witness or adduced evidence of any witness to prove Ex.4 and Ex.6 to 18 . Thus, it is found that the genuineness of Ext.4 and 6 to 18 stand not proved, meaning thereby the complainant side has failed to prove his idea that he had spent Rs.69,879/- in repairing his vehicle after the accident. In such situation, what the surveyor assessed the loss is acceptable. Therefore, it is established that the complainant had actually spent Rs.12,861.14 in repairing his vehicle.The opp.party is found after deducting the deductable amounts has offered Rs.12,000/-as full and final settlement of the claim, of the complainant and sent to him settlement voucher , but the complainant refused to accept the said settlement and to sign over the settlement voucher. Thus, it is found that the offer of Rs.12,000/- as full and final settlement, which the opp.party did on the basis of survey report, is lawfull settlement. As the complainant refused to accept that settlement, the said amount stands till now unpaid to the complainant and non-payment of the said amount to the complainant is in result of the stubborn attitude of the complainant. Thus, we are of opinion that the opp.party side committed no deficiency of service towards the complainant and the complainant has no cause of action against the opp.parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4) Summing up our discussion as above, the complaint is dismissed on contest with a direction to the complainant to receive the settled amount of Rs.12,000/- from the opp.party, if he wants to do so.
Given under our hands and seal on this 21st June ,2018.
(Smt Archana Deka Lahkar) (Md.Jamatul Islam) (Md.Sahadat Hussain) Member Member President
