Ld. Advocate(s)

                                    For Complainant: Sukumar Biswas

                                    For OP/OPs :Joydip Mitra

            Date of filing of the case                  :13.02.2020

            Date of Disposal  of the case           :22.04.2024

Final Order / Judgment dtd.22.04.2024

The concise fact of the case  of the complainant is that  the complainant Raju Sarkar  purchased  Mahindra Super Max Goods carrier vehicle for earning his livelihood  on 28.02.2019 from OP No.5 M.S. Motors. The complainant  used to drive the said vehicle  himself. At the time of purchasing  the said vehicle , on the request of the representative  of OP No.5, the complainant purchased  an insurance  policy under OP No.1 TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited being bumper to bumper policy.  The complainant  paid Rs.27,802/- for the said insurance premium to OP No.1 against the said insurance policy bearing no.0176186769. During the validity of the said policy, the said vehicle met with an accident  on 09.11.2019 at Simurali under Chakdaha  P.S. the complainant  lodged a G.D to Chakdaha  P.S. on 09.11.2019 for the said amounts. The complainant  also informed  the incident  to the insurance company. As per advise  of the OP No.1 the complainant  shifted  the vehicle  to the workshop of OP No.4  M.S Motors. The  Surveyor  also inspected  the vehicle  and submitted report  but surprisingly  the OP No.4 demanded  Rs.30,000/- from the complainant  without any reason.  Complainant  questioned to the OP No.4  but they did not reply. So, the complainant sent mail to OP No.3 on 27.12.2019  but the OP NO.3 gave false assurance  to resolve the  problem.  Thereafter, the complainant  issued several reminders  but to no effect. Instead the OP No.4 created pressure  upon  the complainant  to deposit  Rs.30,000/-. Due to not settle the claim  the complainant  is under great hardship. Thereafter,  the complainant sent a legal notice  but the OP did not reply  to the same. The claim  of the complainant  is still pending. So, the  OPs  have done unfair trade practice and gross negligence  in rendering  service  to the complainant  for which the complainant  suffered  mental agony and pain. The complainant , therefore,  prayed for an award for Rs.4,70,605/-, Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation for mental pain and agony and Rs.35,000/- towards litigation cost together with interest @18% p.a.

            The OPs  contested the case by filing a written steps denying  the major allegation.  The OP NO.1,2&3 challenged  the case as not maintainable  on the ground  that  there is no consumer dispute and the Commission  has no jurisdiction  to enter  this claim.  The positive  defence case of the OP No.1,2&3 is that  the said insurance policy  was issued against the  vehicle  no.WB89 3025 for the period 14.03.2019 to 13.03.2020 in the name of complainant Raju Sarkar. Unfortunately,  the vehicle met with an accident  on 09.11.2019. The incident  IRDA licensed  Surveyor  Mr. Rathin Pal was appointed  to assess  the loss. The insurance  company duly communicated  the job order  to the concerned  workshop and to dismantle  the insured vehicle in conclusive  assessment  of loss. Despite  repeated  request  due to disagreement  between the  complainant  and the workshop  it was not  dismantled  and the Surveyor  submitted  the preliminary  assessment  report with loss of Rs.1,98,000/-. On receipt  of grievance e-mail  from the insured  the insurance company  enquired  with  the workshop  and they were  informed  that the complainant  was first  to pay  his part of the  cost of repairing , as the insurance company  was not liable to pay for the  depreciation  applicable  to the parts  considered  for  replacing  and some other charges  and policy  excesses  as per the terms of the policy. The quantum  of claim is excessive, wrong  and baseless.  The OP claimed  that the case  is liable  to be dismissed  with cost. OP No.4&5 M/S M.S Motors  preferred not to contest the case . So, as per order no.14 dated 28.07.2022 the case was decided  to be heard ex-parte against OP No.4&5.

            After considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the point of dispute  raised by  the respective parties, the Commission considers it necessary  to adjudicate  the following points.

Points for Determination

Point No.1.

Whether the  present case is maintainable  in its present form and prayer.

Point No.2.

Whether the complainant  is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

Point No.3.

            To what other relief if any the complainant is entitled to get.

Decision with Reasons

Point No.1.

Although , the OP challenged  that the case is not maintainable yet in course of argument  the OP NO.1,2&3 could not advance any argument  as to why the present case is not maintainable. However,  after perusing  the pleadings  of the parties  and the evidence  in the case record  the Commission considers  that the case is not barred under any provisions  of law. Both the parties  and the amounts of the claim falls under  the territorial  and pecuniary jurisdiction  of this Commission respectively.

So, the case is not barred by law and maintainable  in its present form and prayer.

Accordingly,  point no.1 is answered in favour of the complainant.

Point No.2&3.

Both the points are  very closely  interlinked with each other, so  these are taken up together for brevity and convenience of discussion.

The complainant  in order to  substantiate  the case adduced  oral evidence  in the form of affidavit in chief and proved the documents as per the list filed by the complainant.

Annexure-A is the Insurance Policy  bearing no. 0176186769 in the name  of Raju Sarkar  the complainant  for the period 14.03.2019 to 13.03.2020.

Annexure-A1 is the  Tax Invoice issued by M.S Motors in the name of the complainant  dated 31.12.2018.

Annexure-B is the  certificate of registration.

Annexure-C is the  work order dated 27.11.2019.

Annexure-D is the letter  to the complainant  by  Tanmoy  Dutta dated 05.12.2019.

Annexure-E is the  legal notice  issued by Arijit Sen  dated 19.12.2019 to the workshop  Manager M.S Motors.

It is the admitted  fact that the  insured  vehicle met with an  accident  on 09.11.2019 that is within the validity period  of the insurance policy. It is also the further admitted  case  that on intimation  of loss the insurance  company  registered the claim  and appointed  a surveyor  to assess the  quantum  of loss . the insurance company thereafter,  communicated  the job order to the concerned  workshop  with a request  to dismantle  the insured vehicle.

The OP contented  that  due to disagreement  between the  complainant  and the workshop  the insured vehicle  was not dismantled.

But the  OP No.4&5 did not come forward to discard  the  allegation  against them.

The complainant  categorically  pleaded and filed evidence that  OP No.4 started  the repairing  work but created pressure  upon the complainant  for  depositing  the advance  amounts of Rs.30,000/-.

The OP NO.4&5 did not discard  the said specific  allegation  against them in as much as  both the OP No.4&5 preferred  not to contest the case and as such  it was heard ex-parte against them. So, the specific allegation  of the complainant that OP No.4 demanded Rs.30,000/- unnecessarily  without assessing  any reason  stand undiscarded and unrebutted .

The complainant  specifically  put question  under question no.3 as to whether the OP NO.1,2&3 had taken any steps against  the workshop Manager  of M.S Motors  for disobeying their order.

The OP No.1,2&3 answered  that “this is not our concerned”.

Actually  the OP No.1,2&3 could not assign specific reason  or so any rules  and  regulations regarding  not taking  steps against  the workshop Manager M.S Motors for disobeying  their order. So, also the  OP No.1,2&3 could not specify  any particular  IRDA rules.

Ld. Defence Counsel  for the OP NO.1,2&3 argued that  the OP informed  to OP NO.4&5 about the said work. Bill is paid  after repairing  the work.  If an agent like M.S Motors does any  wrong then why  TATA AIG will be liable.

Ld. Defence Counsel  further argued  that the OP NO.1,2&3 engaged surveyor  to discharge  their liability who submitted report  assessing  the loss of Rs.1,98,000/-. Ld. Defence Counsel  further argued  that if M.S Motors  practice any  fraud then why the OP No.1,2&3 would be  liable.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant argued that  the disputed policy is a comprehensive policy.  The complainant paid the entire money for the said policy. Since the vehicle was duly insured and the accident occured during the validity of the insurance. So complainant is entitled to get  the award money  from the OPs.

It is  fact that  a sum of Rs.30,000/- was claimed  from the complainant. The vehicle was  duly insured and the accident  took place  during the validity of the insurance , so  there is nothing  to justify  that  the complainant  is liable  to pay Rs.30,000/- as claimed  by the OP No.3&4. Ld. Advocate  for the complainant  rightly  argued  that had the sum of Rs.30,000/- initially  paid then complainant  would have not filed  the present  case. So, both the OP No.1,2&3 and the OP No.4&5 are jointly and severally  responsible  for the compensation  money.

It is also important  to consider  that the surveyor  assessed  the loss to the tune of Rs.1,98,000/- but the OP could not  prove any document for requirement of Rs.30,000/- the said require or justify what is  the basis  for ascertainment  the said loss to the extent of Rs.1,98,000/- against the  claim  of the complainant  for a huge amount.

Thus  the complainant is entitled to get  the compensation at a reasonable  rate as per the agreement  between the  parties on the basis  of the insurance  policy.

In the backdrop  of the aforesaid  discussion  and the observation  made hereinabove  the Commission come to the  finding  that the complainant  has proved the case  upto the hilt.

Accordingly,  point 2&3 are answered  in affirmative  and decided  in favour of the complainant.

In the result the complaint case succeeds  on contest with cost.

Hence,

                                    It is

Ordered

that the complaint case no.CC/15/2020 be and the same is allowed on contest against OP No.1-3 and ex-parte against OP No.4 &5 with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). The complainant Raju Sarkar do get an award against the OPs for sum of Rs.4,70,605/- (Rupees Four lakh seventy thousand six hundred five) towards insurance claim, Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) towards mental pain and agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) towards litigation cost. The OPs are jointly and severally responsible to pay the  said amount of award money.  The OPs are directed to pay Rs.5,30,605/- (Rupees five lakh thirty thousand six hundred five) within 30 days from the date of passing the final order to the complainant failing which the entire award money shall carry an interest @ 8% p.a till the date of its realisation.

All Interim Applications  (I.A) stand disposed of  accordingly.

D.A to note in the trial register.

The case is accordingly disposed of.

Let a copy of this final order be supplied to both the parties at free of costs.      

Dictated & corrected by me

 ............................................

                PRESIDENT

(Shri   HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)                              ................ ..........................................

                                                                                                                          PRESIDENT

                                                                                            (Shri   HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)

I  concur,

 ........................................                                                 

            MEMBER                                                                                   

( SHRI NIROD  BARAN   ROY  CHOWDHURY)