State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Br. Manager, National Insurance Co. ... vs Sri Tushar Goswami on 16 January, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. FA/703/2014 (Arisen out of Order Dated 29/04/2014 in Case No. CC/06/2014 of District Nadia) 1. The Br. Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Krishnagar Branch, P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia, Pin Code -741 101. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Tushar Goswami S/o T. Goswami, 20, R.N. Tagore Road, P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia, Pin Code -741 101. 2. Manager Magma Finance Corporation Ltd. Berhampore Br., P.O. & P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin -742 101. 3. Manager Vandory Motors Pvt. Ltd. 1154A, B.T. Road, Sukchar, Kolkata -700 115. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. JAGANNATH BAG MEMBER For the Appellant: Afroze Alam, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Barun Prasad., Advocate Mr. Prasanta Banerjee , Advocate Dated : 16 Jan 2017 Final Order / Judgement Sri Debasis Bhattacharya, Member
This appeal is preferred against the Order dated 29-04-2014, passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nadia (in short 'the District Forum') in C. C. No. 06/2014, whereby the complaint case has been allowed on contest. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, OP No. 1 thereof has preferred this appeal.
Briefly stated, case of the Complainant, is that, his vehicle met with an accident on 30-09-2011, as a result of which the same got totally damaged. OP No. 1 was accordingly informed of such peril by the Complainant. After receiving claim intimation, OP No. 1 deputed a surveyor. As per the advice of said Surveyor, the Complainant sent the damaged vehicle to Bhandari Motors Pvt. Ltd., who after examining the vehicle issued estimate for a sum of Rs. 13,00,446/-. On 02-11-2011, he submitted an application before the OP No. 1 to settle his claim. Thereafter, the Complainant vigorously followed up the matter with the OP No. 1, but to no avail. Having his back against the wall, the Complainant filed the instant complaint case before the Ld. District Forum.
By submitting a W.V., the OP No. 1 disputed the claim of the Complainant stating inter alia that after receiving intimation about the concerned peril, it sent a Surveyor to investigate the matter. Allegedly, although the said Surveyor asked the Complainant to dismantle the vehicle, the Complainant did not take any step towards this end. Thereafter, the said Surveyor, after inspecting the damaged vehicle, asked the Complainant to repair the same and also requested the repairer to submit revised estimate. The OP No. 1, replying to the letter of Complainant's Ld. Advocate, informed him to forward the expense bill/cash memo at the earliest, but till date the Complainant has not taken any step in this regard.
Point for determination is whether the impugned order suffers from any legal infirmity, or not.
Decision with reasons The Ld. District Forum, vide its impugned order, directed the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 11,60,100/- in full and final settlement of the claim of the Respondent for a sum of Rs. 14,50,100/-.
The Ld. District considered the loss as Constructive Total Loss taking into consideration the fact that the estimated repairing cost of the vehicle was approx. 85% of the IDV. It appears, the Ld. District Forum, picking a thread from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dharmendra Goel v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2008) 8 SCC 279, considered depreciation @ 20% (the vehicle being one year and one month old) and derived at the figure of Rs. 11,60,100/-.
In this regard, it is stated by the Appellant that the Surveyor deployed by it estimated the loss at Rs. 7,67,291/-. However, for some obscure reasons, it has not placed on record the concerned survey report, thereby left us with no scope to check the correctness of the same. True, the survey report is a vital piece of document to determine the merit of a claim. Having said that, it is also a fact that the same is not the last word in this regard, even Insurance Company is not bound to abide by such report. We afraid, without having a look into the same, we cannot vouch for the rightness of the same.
It appears that the Respondent No. 1, vide a letter dated 02-11-2011, urged the Appellant to settle his claim. However, the Appellant, on one pretext or the other, avoided disbursing any amount to the Respondent No. 1. Since the amount at stake was quite substantial, seemingly, the Respondent No. 1 was not in a position to shoulder such huge expenditure from his own coffers. In the process, the parking charge bill, which is/was Rs. 100/- per diem kept mounting leaps and bounds w.e.f. 22-12-2011, thanks to the insistence of the Appellant to submit cash memo/voucher towards repairing of the said vehicle.
It is insisted by the Appellant that as per norm, they would settle the claim only upon submission of cash memo. However, here too we find that the Appellant could not show any such stipulation in the policy terms and conditions, whereupon submission of cash memo is a condition precedent for settlement of such claim. It is naïve to believe that policy terms and conditions are sacrosanct. Therefore, simply by resorting to rhetoric, to our mind, the Appellant cannot compound the misery of a hapless Insured. Such stubborn refusal on the part of the Appellant to settle the claim of the Appellant for months together is a clear pointer of gross deficiency in service.
It may not be out of place to mention here that in terms of Clause 9(5) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders' Interests) Regulations, 2002, it is incumbent upon the Appellant to offer settlement of a claim to the Insured within a period of 30 days on receipt of the survey report or the additional survey report, as the case may be. Such regulatory stipulations, as it appears, are seldom adhered to by the Appellant. This is highly condemnable. Appellant is well within its right to process a claim following due official procedures. But, its understanding of statutory regulations is deeply flawed if it believes that, taking undue advantage of its official position, it can render regulatory directives to a mere showpiece. Statutory regulations are meant for religious adherence of the same by the intended parties that be; not the other way round. The sooner the Appellant realize this, the better.
Considering all these aspects in proper perspective, we are of opinion that the impugned order is perfectly in order and therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the same.
The appeal, thus, fails.
Hence, O R D E R E D That FA/703/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Respondent No. 1. Parties do bear their respective costs. [HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. JAGANNATH BAG] MEMBER