National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Insurance Company Limited vs Jogesh Roy & Anr. on 21 March, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 532 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 07/12/2016 in Appeal No. 403/2015 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, DRO II, 2E/9, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. NEW DELHI ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. JOGESH ROY & ANR. R/O. LANE NO. 15, PURBACHAL, TETULTALA NORTH 24 PGS, P.S. AIRPORT, KOLKATA-700136 WEST BANGAL 2. BODY SHOP MANAGER, GHOSH BROTHER AUTOMOBILES INDIA PVT. LTD. 36A, G.J. KHAN ROAD, (TOPSIA ZIAHIDE) KHALPAAR DHAPA KOLKATA-700039 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pramod K. Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : JOGESH ROY & ANR.
Dated : 21 Mar 2017 ORDER
JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
The complainant purchased a commercial vehicle and got the same insured with the petitioner company. The vehicle met with an accident on 15.12.2012. Alleging non-settlement of his claim, the complainant / respondent approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. Since the vehicle at that time was lying in the workshop of Ghosh Brother Automobiles (India) Pvt. Ltd., the aforesaid company was impleaded as opposite party No.3 in the complaint. The complaint was resisted by the insurer on the ground that no claim had been submitted by the complainant to them and no intimation of the accident was given. The District Forum vide its order dated 26.6.2014, directed as under:
"That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against OP Nos. 1 & 2 and same is allowed ex-parte against OP No.3 with cost of Rs.1,000/- each against each of the OPs.
OP Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally are directed to appoint one automobile expert surveyor to assess the loss of the complainant's vehicle which was insured under the OP at the premises of OP No.3 as the vehicle is lying in the custody of the OP No.3 and the said automobile expert surveyor after assessment of the loss shall submit report within one month from the date of inspection to the OP Nos. 1 & 2 and OP Nos. 1 & 2 shall send the letter to the complainant along with application claim form including surveyor's report asking the complainant to submit the claim application form duly filled in along with required documents and detail of documents shall be mentioned in the said letter so that complainant may file paper as per requirement of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 and thereafter OP Nos. 1 & 2 shall have to settle the claim of the complainant in respect of damage of the vehicle which faced accident on 15.12.2012 and the entire matter shall be disposed of by the OP Nos. 1 & 2 positively within two months from the date of this order failing which OP Nos. 1 & 2 shall have to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the said damaged vehicle as repairing cost.
If the order of the Forum is not complied by the OP Nos. 1 & 2 in that case OP Nos. 1 & 2 shall be imposed punitive damages @ Rs.250/- per day till the full satisfaction of the decree.
OP No.3 is hereby directed not to take any service charge when it was not repaired by the OP No. 3 as yet. On and from the date of issuance of fit certificate of the vehicle by the OP No.3 the OP No.3 may charge garage charge @ Rs.50/- per day till the date of taking delivery of the same by the complainant. OP No.3 shall complete repairing within one month from the date of inspection of Surveyor.
Complainant is also directed to follow the order and will be more vigilant about the matter. So that no further damage may be caused by the complainant or by the OP Nos. 1, 2 and 3, in any case OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3 are found violating the order in that case penal action shall be started against them for which further penalty may be imposed as per Seciton-25 of C.P. Act, 1986".
2. The aforesaid order passed by the District Forum having not been challenged by the petitioner, became final.
3. A surveyor was appointed by the insurer in terms of the direction given by the District Forum. The surveyor namely Mr. Ramesh Kumar Jalan assessed the damage to the vehicle, without getting the vehicle dismantled. The net loss to the complainant was assessed at Rs.3,33,241.81. The surveyor however, noticed that the permit for the aforesaid vehicle had been issued on 09.10.2013 and was valid upto 08.10.2018 whereas; the accident had taken place on 15.12.2012. The insurer vide its letter dated 25.8.2014, repudiated the claim on the ground that a commercial vehicle was being plied without permit at a public place.
4. EA No. 186 of 2014 was then filed by the complainant in which an order dated 10.2.2015 came to be passed by the District Forum, directing the insurer to first submit the loss assessment for repair of the vehicle and the total cost of its repair. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order / direction dated 10.2.2015; the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal however, was dismissed on the ground that the order of the District Forum dated 26.6.2014, which the insurer had not challenged, did not leave any scope for repudiating the claim and the surveyor was required only to quantify the damage and the cost of repairing the vehicle.
5. I am in agreement with the State Commission that since the order of the District Forum dated 26.6.2014 was never challenged by the insurer and therefore, had become final, the claim could not have been repudiated on the ground that the vehicle did not possess a permit on the date it met with an accident. The District Forum vide order dated 26.6.2014, expressly directed the inspection of the vehicle by the surveyor, followed by the insurer writing a letter to the complainant, along with the application claim form requiring him to submit the claim application and then settle the claim in respect of the damage of the vehicle. The entire process was required to be completed within two months from the said order, failing which the insurer was to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the damaged vehicle, as repairing cost. Though, the order passed by the District Forum on 26.6.2014, was rather sweeping in its scope, leaving no scope for altogether rejection of the claim, the fact remains that having not been challenged by the insurer, the said order became final and therefore, the insurer had no option but to comply with the aforesaid order. By requiring the insurer to settle the claim in respect of damage to the vehicle, followed by a further direction to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,0000/- as compensation for damage as repairing cost, in case the entire process was not completed within two months, the District Forum left no scope for rejecting the claim on account of the vehicle not possessing a valid permit on the date of the accident.
6. Though, considering the order passed by the District Forum on 26.6.2014, the claim, to the extent it is found justified, will have to be paid even if the vehicle did not possesses a valid permit on the date it met with an accident, this situation has been created on account of the insurer having not challenged the order of the District Forum dated 26.6.2014 and the said order having consequently become final and binding.
7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER