DATE OF FILING : 22.04.2015.
DATE OF S/R : 03.06.2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 15.11.2016.
Sanjib Das,
son of Arun Kumar Das,
of village Basudevpur ( Shibtala ), P.O. Banipur,
P.S. Sankrail, District Howrah,
PIN 711304. …………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
1. The Natiional Insurance Company Limited,
having its registered office at 3, Middleton Street,
Kolkata 700 021 and issuing officer at
National Insurance Building ,
Division no. XV, 8, India Exchange Place, 1st Floor,
Kolkata 700 001.
2. The Manager / Competent Person,
National Insurance Company Limited,
having its office at 3, Middleton Street,
Kolkata 700 021 and issuing office at
National Insurance Building,
Division no. XV, 8, India Exchange Place, 1st Floor,
Kolkata 700001.
3. Mr. Nirupam Das,
Surveyor, residing at 630, Nawab Bagan, Chinsurah,
Hooghly 712101.
4. Amita Auto Centre,
having its garage at Andul Purbapara, Andul Mouri,
Howrah 711302. ……………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak .
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Sanjib Das, against the o.ps. praying for a direction upon the o.ps. to disburse a sum of Rs. 9,756/- in his favour and to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for causing harassment to him and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs.
- The case of the petitioner is that he purchased one motor cycle on 25.11.2010 with registration no. WB 14F 9593, chesis no. MD 625 NF 11A 1L93437, engine no. AF1LA1327466 of TVS Motors Ltd. from Amita Auto Centre, o.p. no. 4. He also insured the vehicle with National Insurance Company Ltd. who issued certificate of insurance cum policy being no. 15010031136200010974 and went on renewing the policy up to mid nilght of 30.11.2015. On 25.7.2014 an accident occurred at Andul Road and the vehicle was damaged and at the relevant time the policy was a valid one from 01.12.2014 to 30.11.2015. The petitioner informed the matter to the o.p. no. 1 about the accident. The o.p. no. 4 issued estimated bill to the petitioner after checking the damaged parts and the estimated bill amounted to Rs. 9,756/- which is required to be paid by o.p. as he got the vehicle repaired. The o.p. no. 1 received the duly filled up claim form and earlier application dated 28.7.2014 along with estimated bill given by o.p. no. 4 on 18.8.2014 but none came to inspect the said insured vehicle at the garage of the o.p. no. 4. On 19.12.2014 the complainant received one letter dated 15.12.2014 from the o.p. nos. 1, 2 & 3 and replied the same on 22.02.2014. On 30.12.2014 the o.p. no. 3 sent him a letter requesting him to produce the insured vehicle. Again on 09.1.2015 the petitioner received one letter from Sr. Divisional Manager of the o.p. company. On 14.02.2015 the insured vehicle was produced for inspection at the garage of o.p. no. 4 and the o.p. no. 3 namely Nirupam Das has not visited the garage and not inspected the vehicle though a person claimed representative of the o.ps. visited the same and took some photographs of the insured motor cycles and expressed that amount of Rs. 9,756/- shall be disbursed after repairing. On 23.2.2013 the o.p. no. 3 advised the petitioner to produce the damaged parts for assessment otherwise the o.p. would be compelled to issue ex parte order without assessing the loss. The o.ps. have not decided the claim even though it was filed on 18.8.2014 and not disbursed the claim amount of Rs. 9,756/-. The petitioner paid Rs. 9,756/- and got the vehicle repaired being some parts replaced. Hence the case filed with above prayers.
- The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegation made against them and submitted that as per claim of the petitioner there was an accident on 25.07.2014 at 11 a.m. over Andul Road near West Bank Hospital, Howrah, but the petitioner informed the office of the o.p. on 28.7.2014 and the estimate made on 16.8.2014 by one Amit Auto Centre and the same submitted to the office of the o.ps. on 18.8.2014. There was a delay of 22 days and no clarification was made by the petitioner to that effect. After receiving the claim form and estimated form of the petitioner the insurance company on the next date i.e., 19.8.2014 appointed Mr. Nirupam Das, surveyor, Loss Assessor to assess the damaged vehicle and submitting his report to the company. The surveyor called the petitioner on 19.8.2014 to produce the vehicle at the repairing garage i.e., New Anita Auto Centre and the petitioner informed that the repairing has already been done by the garage and he could not produce the vehicle at the garage. It is not known to the insurance company why did the petitioner repair the insured vehicle before inspection and assessment of loss was done and thus the damaged insured vehicle could not be assessed. The surveyor, Mr. Nirupam Das, informed that the vehicle has already been repaired and even then he asked the petitioner for several times to come but he did not produce the vehicle or the damaged parts and under such circumstances the reported loss could not be assessed and the surveyor submitted blank assessment report. The petitioner could also not produce the bills, receipts and cash memos regarding the repairing or replacing the damaged parts before surveyor and without such papers and without giving chance to the surveyor and without producing the receipts of payment the petitioner’s claim filed was closed as no claim and the insurance company prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
- Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip off reiteration. In support of his case, the petitioner, Sanjib Das, filed affidavit as well as documents in support of his claim of Rs. 9,756/- being the cost of repairing his damaged vehicle. On scrutiny of the record, it is clear before the Forum that the accident took place on 25.7.2014 when the insurance policy was valid and the petitioner placed his vehicle before the o.p. no. 4, Amita Auto Centre, from whom he actually purchased the vehicle and he informed the matter to the o.p. insurance company about the said accident. The o.p. no. 4 after inspection of the damaged vehicle issued estimated bill amounting to Rs. 9,756/- and the petitioner filed the duly filled up claim form before the o.p. no. 1 along with estimated bill on 28.7.2014. It is also noticed from the statement of petitioner that none came to the garage of o.p. no. 4 to inspect the insured vehicle and on 19.12.2014 he received a letter from the o.p. nos. 1, 2 & 3 and again o.p. no. 3 being the surveyor in this case also requested him to produce his insured vehicle in the garage by a letter dated 30.12.2014. Thus it is noticed that when the petitioner placed his vehicle before the o.p. no. 4 garage soon after accident and informed the matter to the o.p. no. 1 then and then and also the o.p. no. 1 received the duly filled up claim form along with the estimated bill on 28.7.2014 and everything happening in the month of July itself then the surveyor’s letter dated 14.02.2015 directing the petitioner to place his vehicle for inspection at the garage of o.p. no. 4, there is a lapse of over four months on the part of the o.ps. to take immediate steps for the inspection of the damaged motor cycle which need not be and should not be kept in the garage for months together without repair of the same waiting for long for the response from the insurance company or from his surveyor. It should be kept in mind that the consumer or the insured are neither at the mercy of the surveyor nor at the mercy of the insurance company which is bound to comply the terms and conditions of the contract i.e., the terms and conditions as mentioned in the insurance policy. Here instead of meeting the expenses of the petitioner being a meagre sum of Rs. 9,756/- this o.p. insurance company reluctantly contested this case wherein they might have spent more than the amount required to be paid to the petitioner. This is nothing but deficiency in service as well as clear negligence on the part of the insurance company who on the other hand in their written version submitted that they were informed of the matter after 22 days of accident and no clarification was given by the petitioner to that effect. The o.p. got the claim form on 18.8.2014 and appointed Mr. Nirupam Das as the surveyor to assess the loss of the damaged vehicleon the next date i.e., 19.8.2014 inspect the vehicle in garage. But the very letter of the said surveyor to the petitioner, Sanjib Das, shows that it was written on 15.12.2014 i.e., after four months and the same fact proved that even though the petitioner placed the vehicle before the garage in time i.e., after three days from the date of accident which took place on 25.7.2014 and he placed the claim form along with estimated bill on 18.8.2014 and the surveyor’s letter to the petitioner dated 15.12.2014 proving the fact, otherwise, in favour of the petitioner who made no delay rather the o.p. insurance company and their surveyor made the delay for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible. The act and conduct of the part of the insurance company showing themselves as masters and insured persons are their servants or employees and they are like kings to dictate terms on their poor subjects. Such attitude in these modern days must be denied.
In view of above discussion and findings this Forum finds that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner rather there was clear negligence and deficiency on the part of o.p. insurance company and their surveyor for which they are responsible and they must be taken to task.
In the result, the application succeeds.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. No. 155 of 2015 be and the same is allowed on contest with costs against the O.Ps.
The petitioner is entitled to the sum of Rs. 9,756/- from the o.p. insurance company along with interest @ 9% from the date of claim till realization of the amount and also entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for harassment and the o.ps. insurance company is to pay a cost of Rs. 50,000/- out of which Rs. 5,000/- would go in favour of the petitioner, who is a legal practitioner as litigation cost, and the rest Rs. 45,000/- would be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid A/c of this Forum as a punitive measure against the o.p. nos. 1 – 3.
The above payment be made within 30 days from the date of this order i.d., the complainant is at liberty to put the final order into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
