Back
WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya and Mr. Jagannath Bag, Members
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
ARIJIT MAHATA AND ANOTHER - Respondents
S.C. Case No. FA/51/2012
Decided on : 28-02-2014
Mr. N.R. Mukherjee, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Barun Prasad, Advocate, for the Respondent
The significance of the surveyor's report and the strict construction of insurance agreements in determining the extent of liability of the insurer.
Headnote:
Insurance - Vehicle Insurance - 44/S/2011 - The court discussed the provisions of the Private Car Package Policy and the obligations of the insurance company in assessing and reimbursing the claim. The court also considered the importance of the surveyor's report and the interpretation of policy conditions. The court referred to various decisions emphasizing the significance of the surveyor's report and the strict construction of insurance agreements.
Fact of the Case:
The Complainant purchased a vehicle insured under the Private Car Package Policy. After an accident, the insurance company assessed the loss at a lower amount than claimed by the Complainant, leading to a dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the Complainant and that the towing of the vehicle did not aggravate the damage as presumed by the insurance company. The court upheld the findings of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: Violation of policy conditions, assessment of loss, contributory negligence, and the significance of the surveyor's report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the surveyor's report in assessing the loss and interpreting policy conditions. It also clarified that towing the vehicle did not violate policy conditions and did not aggravate the damage.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was confirmed.
ORDER
Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member -This appeal is directed against the order dated 9.11.2011 passed by the learned District Forum, Siliguri in Case No. 44/S/2011.
2. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum has allowed the case on contest in part against the OP No. 2 with cost of Rs. 1,000 (Rupees one thousand) only and dismissed against the OP No. 1 without cost, entitling the Complainant to get a sum of Rs. 83,934 (Rupees eighty-three thousand nine hundred thirty-four) only towards repairing charges and a sum of Rs. 20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand) only towards compensation for mental pain, agony, harassment and deficiency in service from the OP No. 2, and the OP No. 2 has been directed to pay the decretal amount within 45 days from the date of order, failing which such amounts will carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of institution of the case, i.e., 13.6.2011 till its realization.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the OP No. 2 thereof has preferred this appeal.
4. The case of the Complainant is that he purchased a four-wheeler vehicle from the OP No. 1 on 13.5.2010 at Rs. 3,99,900, which was insured under the Private Car Package Policy of the OP No. 2 for a period from 13.5.2011 to 12.5.2012, bearing Policy No. 0G-12-2404-1801-00000439 at I.D.V. of Rs. 3,68,377. On 22.5.2011, at about 9.00 a.m., the said vehicle met with an accident at Fulbari Canal, Rangapani, causing immense damage and loss, and to prevent further damage and loss, complainant brought it to his home by pulling it by another four-wheeler vehicle after towing, and being a Sunday, he informed the incident to the OP No. 3. On 23.5.2011, he along with the OP No. 3 went to the OP No. 2 and intimated the entire incident and filled in the claim from and was issued I.D. No. OC-12-2404-1801-00000283. After that, the authorized men and staff of the OP No. 1 visited his house and provided with an estimate of repairing cost of Rs. 83,934.33. In the evening of that day, the Surveyor of the OP No. 2 came to his house and inspected the vehicle and he was shown the estimate provided by the OP No. 1. Thereafter, the OP No. 2 issued a letter dated 27.5.2011 to him entitling a claim of only Rs. 3,281. Against it, he sent a reply on 4.6.2011 stating that he is legally entitled to get Rs. 83,934.00 from the OP No. 2 and for earliest reimbursement of the same, but without any avail. Accordingly, the case.
5. The case of the Insurance Company is that the Complainant should have informed the OP about the alleged accident immediately after it and also that he most illegally and violating the policy condition, brought the vehicle to his house by way of towing by another four wheeler vehicle without informing the OP, for his ulterior motives and wrongful gains and for such driving for some period of time, there was seizure of the engine components, and the OP could not discharge its lawful obligation and duty by way of spot survey/inquiry. The oil pan of the vehicle got damaged and seized as the vehicle was driven for some period of time after the accident. The OP deputed I.R.D.A. approved and licensed Surveyor, Mr. Bibhas Ranjan Jha to survey and assess the alleged loss, after getting information from the insured, who made a preliminary survey report, assessing a net assessed loss of Rs. 3,281, which upon careful scrutiny, the OP found that the liability is of Rs. 3,281 as per terms and conditions of the policy, which was duly informed to the Complainant by a letter dated 27.5.2011. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Accordingly, the complaint be dismissed.
6. It is to be considered if the impugned order suffers from any anomaly and/or any infirmity necessitating a reversal of the same.
Decision with reasons.
7. Learned Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that there has been contributory negligence on the part of the Complainant. He did not inform the matter to the Insurance Company immediately after the incident, who could not
