State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Baski Nath Pal on 21 October, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street,
Kolkata - 700087
First Appeal No.
FA/930/2012
(Arisen out of Order
Dated 19/09/2012 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/29/2011 of District
Birbhum)
1.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
P.O.
& P.S. - Suri, Birbhum, through Regional Manager, Kolkata, 38B,
J.L. Neharu Road, Kolkata - 700 071.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1.
Baski Nath Pal
S/o
Subodh Kumar Pal, Vill. Pariharpur, Village Raniswar, Dist. Dumka,
Jharkhand.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE
MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE
MR. JAGANNATH BAG MEMBER
For
the Appellant: Mr. S. Mukhopadhyay, Ld. Advocate
For
the Respondent: Mr. Sanjit Kr. Acharya, Ld. Advocate
ORDER
Date:
21-10-2014 Sri Debasis Bhattacharya , Member This appeal is directed against the Order dt. 19-09-2012, passed in Case No. 29/2011 by the Ld. District Forum, Birbhum, by which, the complaint has been allowed on contest directing the OP to accord insurance benefit to the Complainant. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the OP thereof has preferred this appeal.
Brief facts of the complaint case are that the Complainant took an insurance policy being no. 031801/31/08/01/00000277 from the OP in respect of his vehicle bearing no. JH 04B-9400. The said vehicle met with an accident, resulting in its damage, and accordingly, Sainthia P.S. started case no. 28/09 dt. 21-02-2009, u/s 279/339/338, IPC and seized the vehicle. Thereafter, due intimation was conveyed to the OP insurer about such accident, but they initially dithered to enquire into the matter. After observing due process of law, the Complainant got the vehicle released and sent the same to Samrat Automobiles for repairing of the same. The said servicing centre estimated the cost of repair at Rs. 63,968/- and issued an estimate to that effect on 14-03-2009, which the Complainant submitted to the OP along with Claim Form and other relevant papers. After obtaining verbal nod from the Surveyor, the Complainant asked the Service Centre to repair the vehicle and once necessary repairing work was done, the Complainant paid the repairing charges to the tune of Rs. 63,968/- from his own coffers and submitted all bills pertaining to the repair of the same to the OP for settlement of claim. However, the OP, sent a Discharge Voucher dt. 12-10-2009 for a sum of Rs. 8,218/-, as against his insurance claim of Rs. 63,968/-. On receipt of said Discharge Voucher, the Complainant immediately made contact with the OP insurer and requested them to reimburse the actual expenses, but in vain. Hence, the case.
Per contra, the case of the present Appellant was that timely information, in terms of the policy condition, was not conveyed to them by the Complainant and hence, there was no scope for them to conduct spot survey about the accident. Not only that, the damaged vehicle had not been inspected by any independent surveyor before undertaking repairing job. On 22-05-2009, when repairing job was at its final stage, Mr. Rajib Roy, independent Surveyor & Loss Assessor conducted survey and assessed the loss at Rs. 11,958/-, including lifting and towing charges of Rs. 1,000/-, subject to production of such receipt, which the Complainant failed to produce. Therefore, the said amount was deducted from the assessed loss. Further, 25% of the assessed loss was deducted for denying the OP of the opportunity to inspect the damaged vehicle before repairing of the same. Loss was assessed by the independent surveyor as per prevailing norms and policy terms and the OP also processed the claim of the Complainant after giving due importance to the interest of the Complainant and there has been no lacunae on their part in settling the claim.
It is to be considered in this appeal as to whether the impugned order suffers from any infirmity on the aspect of law and fact, or not.
Decision with reasons Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the Surveyor has meticulously scrutinized the papers being presented to him by the Complainant and after due consideration of the same, he assessed the loss following standard procedure and based on the specific recommendation of the Surveyor, they offered an amount of Rs. 8,218/- towards settlement of Complainants claim, which he refused. He also made out that FIR was lodged after a considerable delay while the incident took place on 21-02-2009, information was given to the police only on 02-03-2009. Further, although salvage property belongs to the insurance company, the Complainant did not produce any salvage. In support of his contention, the Ld. Advocate has relied upon two decisions of the Honble National Commission, namely, in RP No. 459/2011 and RP No. 1945/2007.
Although the Respondent was absent at the time of hearing, he submitted a BNA, wherein it is mainly contended that the report of the Surveyor is not always sacrosanct, final or last word and the same is not binding upon either the insured or the insurer and placed a decision of the Honble Supreme Court reported in 2010 (1) CPC 387 in his defense.
The fact of the incident is not in dispute. So, delayed FIR is of lesser significance and does not in anyway weaken the claim of the Complainant. Significantly, the insurer took a long time to depute a Surveyor. Although intimation about the incident was given to the insurer by the Complainant on 23-02-2009, it transpires from the Survey Report that the insurer appointed the Surveyor vide its letter dt. 20-05-2009 and on the basis of said appointment letter, the Surveyor visited the Garage, namely, Samrat Automobile, Dubrajpur Road, Suri on 22-05-2009. He has mentioned in his report that the insured provided him with 03 photographs taken at the very spot of the mishap and that MVI was done in respect of the incident and the said report has been annexed with the report of the Surveyor. Also, a few photographs of the ill fated pick up van, taken from various angles to the nearest exposure of damage, have been attached with the said report. It is also noteworthy that though the Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 11,958/-, the insurer offered only a paltry sum of Rs. 8,218/-. So, it can reasonably be inferred from the conduct of the insurer that they themselves did not attach much importance to the report/recommendation of the Surveyor. The Ld. Forum has found merit in the case of the Complainant after careful perusal of the documents filed on behalf of the Complainant, as also the evidence of Proprietor, M/s Samrat Automobiles. Further, Ld. District Forum has deducted 20% from the claim amount of the Complainant, which is on the higher side. There is found to be no kind of anomaly and/or abnormality in the findings and award, as passed by the Ld. District Forum, which is, otherwise sustainable and therefore, the same does not call for any interference.
In the result, the appeal fails.
Hence, ORDERED that the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Respondent, but without any cost. The impugned order is hereby affirmed.
Sri Jagannath Bag. Sri Debasis Bhattacharya.
MEMBER MEMBER