West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/27/2016

Uday Dandapat - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Asim Kumar Dutta

25 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member

And

Sagarika Sarkar, Member

    

Complaint Case No.27/2016

 

    Uday Dandapat, S/o-Sankar Dandapat,

Vill & P.O.-Siromani, P.S.-Kotwali,

Dist-Paschim Medinipur…..….………Complainant

Versus

1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Midnapore Divisional Office at Battala, P.O.-Midnapore, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist-Paschim Medinipur;
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., at Debra, NH-6, Debra Bazar, P.O. & P.S.-Debra, Dist-Paschim Medinipur;
3. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Kharagpur Branch office at Inda, P.O. & P.S.-Kharagpur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur ………….Ops.

 

 For the Complainant:  Mr. Ashim Kumar Dutta, Advocate.

 For the O.P.       :  Mr. Ashok Palodhi & Mr. Subrata Bikash Das, Advocate.                         

 

                                                 Decided on: - 25/05/2017                             

                                                ORDER

                             Pulak Kumar Singha, Member :  In brief the case of the complainant is that the complainant is the owner of a Truck bearing no.WB-33B-3350 and said vehicle was validly insured with O.P. no. 1 & 2 vide policy no.035081/31/12/0100000213

Contd……………….P/2

 

( 2 )

valid for the period from 29/09/2012 to 28/09/2013. The  said vehicle met with an accident on 20/06/2013 within the district of Mahasamundh, Chhatrisgrah and said Truck was badly damaged. After the accident complainant informed O.P. No.2 for immediate spot survey because the accident place was within the deep forest area. O.Ps. have received information of accident but did not depute spot surveyor up to 12 days from the date of accident. After awaiting such long days complainant had to compel to tow the vehicle by a crane and placed it in a garage. Again complainant informed the O.P. No.1 & 2 for survey the damaged vehicle, then O.P. No.1 & 2 deputed one surveyor  who inspected the damaged vehicle and subsequently on 29/07/2013 sent a letter to the complainant for quarry about the damage of the vehicle, complainant replied to O.P. No.1 & 2. O.P. no.1 & 2 repudiated the claim of the complainant. Finding no way complainant appeared before this Forum for getting relief as prayed for.

             O.P. No.1 & 2 contested the case denying the allegation of complainant, stating interalia that the case is not maintainable, as soon as receiving the information of accident this O.Ps. deputed surveyor and on 28/07/2013 he inspected the vehicle at the workshop as dismantled condition. As the vehicle was dismantled prior to survey so the nature and extent of damage could not assessed by the surveyor. So  this O.Ps. have repudiated the claim.  O.Ps. prays for dismissal of the case.

           O.P. No.3 also contested the case by filing w.o. stating interalia that this O.P. is a financial institution and at the time of purchasing the vehicle in question this O.P. provided financial assistance of Rs.18,87,500/- and  loan amount remains due of Rs.12,59,275/- and  complainant is unable to clear the dues, due to non-settled the claim of the complainant. This O.P. prayed for disburse the compensation amount to O.P. no.3.     

Points for decision :

1. Whether the complainant is maintainable ?
2. Whether Op. no. 1 & 2 have  deficient of service ?
3. Whether complainant is entitle to claim as prayed  ?

Decission with Reasons

             All the points are taken together for conveniences and brevity.  We have perused the case record and documents, it appears that complainants insured vehicle met with an accident on head and collusion with another trialor and accident caused on 20/06/2013 at Mahasamundh, District Chhatrisgrah. Due to said accident front portion of the vehicle was badly damaged and halper of the truck in question died. Complainant stated in his petition that accident place was in the deep forest area within Chhatrisgrah State, helper of     

Cond……………….P/3

 

                                                                                         ( 3 )

the truck died on spot and getting information of such accident the complainant intimated the matter immediately to the policy issuing office i.e. O.P. No.2 and subsequently informed verbally office of O.Ps in  the state of Chhatrisgrah for spot survey of the damaged vehicle but no surveyor was deputed by the O.Ps. for spot survey for which the damaged vehicle was kept in deep forest area as a result miscreants have stolen the tyre and some important parts of the vehicle. The complainant again informed O.P. No.2 to investigate the damaged vehicle then O.P. No.2 advised complainant to bring the damaged vehicle and placed it in the registered garage at Debra, Medinipur, accordingly the vehicle was towed by crane and placed it at motor repairing centre Harina, Hat Sultanpur, Paschim Medinipur and informed O.P. no.2.  Subsequently complainant submitted written intimation on 15/07/2013 but no surveyor was inspected the damaged vehicle.

               It appears that complainant adduced two witness one complainant himself, another is surveyor,  Aloke Kumar Chandra. Both witness were cross-examined by Ops. From the cross-examination of PW-1 it reveals that the damaged vehicle was inspected by surveyor on 29/7/2013 and said vehicle is till now kept in the garage as unrepaired condition. PW-2 surveyor stated that O,.P. appointed him on 25/07/2013 for inspected the damage vehicle and in cross-examination P.W.-2 admitted that on head on collusion accident excel, tires and wheels and etc. may be scattered.  Be it mentioned here that complainant stated in his letter addressed to the O.P. no.2 that while the vehicle was towed by crane from accident place badly damaged front cabin, other hanging spares had to dismantle as per advise of local administration (police) otherwise it was not possible to bring the vehicle by towing with crane. Surveyor inspected the damaged vehicle and dismantled front cabin and other spares and asked questions to the complainant for submission of photographs of damaged vehicle and asked to clarify the reason of dismantle the vehicle before final survey. Complainant replied by letter and narrated the actual happenings but O.Ps. have repudiated the claim on the basis of survey report as surveyor stated in his report that he is not in a position to survey  the damage vehicle as it was dismantle position before inspection.

                We find from the photographs of damaged vehicle in dismantle condition, copy of information to the concerned P.S. and letters of complainant addressed to O.Ps.  that immediate after the accident matter was intimated to the P.S. as well as O.P. No.2 but O.Ps. deliberately by negligent to appoint surveyor for spot survey and as the damaged vehicle was abandoned in the deep forest area for about 12 days, some spares were theft

Cond……………….P/4

 

                                                                                               ( 4 )

by miscreants and as the front cabin of the vehicle with spaces were badly damaged so, it was difficult to tow the vehicle on such condition. More over local administration to avoid further accident or any harmful advised complainant to dismantle the hanging body and spares before towing the vehicle. From the fact and documents it appears that O.Ps. are liable for such type of dismantle of damaged vehicle as Ops. were deliberately delayed to engage surveyor. Accident caused on 20/06/2013 and surveyor inspected the vehicle in the repairing garage on 29/07/2013 i.e. after one month but as per insurance rules after receiving information of any incident of insured vehicle, Insurance Co. should immediately engage spot surveyor but in the instant case O.Ps were negligent though complainant immediate after the accident and repeatedly knock the O.Ps. for engaged spot surveyor.

           It appears that repairing centre had estimated of Rs.7,88,300/- for cost of repair the damaged vehicle. Complainant repeatedly requested the O.Ps. by sending various letters stating that said vehicle has good financial liability so, as early as possible to settled the claim but O.Ps. have repudiated the claim on the ground dismantle damaged vehicle before inspection by surveyor.  In view of the above discussions and documents we find that such situation arise only on the deliberate negligent and deficient of service by the O.P. no.1 & 2. O.P. no.1 &2 could settled the claim at least on non-standard basis, so that complainant can get some relief and save for monitory loss. O.P.no.1 & 2 cannot shift their weakness of legal obligation and durden to the complainant O.P. no.3 gave financial assistance for purchasing the vehicle and about Rs.13 lakhs is due to the complainant and complainant is also unable to clear the dues for non-settlement of claim.

             We find that the claim is maintainable and O.P. no.1 & 2 are deficient in service and complainant also entitled to get relief as prayed for.

            In view of the discussions and documents of record we think this claim of the complainant can be settled on non-standard basis and complainant also entitled to compensation for mental agony, sufferings and monitory loss. The claim should be settled of 75% on non-standard basis as per estimated cost of repair Rs.7,88,300/- under such circumstances we think that the complainant is entitled to get redressal.

            Complaint case succeeds.                            

                                        Hence, it is,

ORDERED,

              That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against O.Ps. O.P. no.1 & 2 are directed  to pay Rs.5,91,255/- as non-standard basis for repairing cost of the

Cond……………….P/5

                                                

                                                                                        ( 5 )

 subject vehicle with 8% interest from the date of accident of vehicle and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental pain, harassment and monitory loss to the complainant within one month from the date of this order. Failure to comply the order O.P. No.1 & 2 shall be liable to pay panel damage Rs.6,000/- per month to be paid to this Forum.   

Dictated and Corrected by me

        Sd/- P.K. Singha                       Sd/- S. Sarkar                Sd/-B. Pramanik.

               Member                                 Member                          President

                                                                                               District Forum

                                                                                            Paschim Medinipur