Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Appeal Nos. A/954/2018 and A/350/2018 borne out of Complaint Case No. CC/335/2011 which has been allowed by the Ld. District Commission Kolkata—I (North) vide its order dated 12.03.2018. The facts and circumstances of both these appeal since been identical the same are disposed of through this common order.

1. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a Tata Sumo Car from O.P No. 4. In order to indemnify of loss the complainant obtained insurance policy from O.P Nos. 1 and 2 on payment of premium bearing policy no. 04-09-2401-1812-00000502 and the policy period was from 06.12.2008 to 05.12.2009. The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 12,304/- towards the premium. During the subsistence of the said policy the said vehicle met with an accident and due to such accident some passengers sustained severe injuries and they were hospitalized at Barasat hospital. On the basis of the said fact FIR was lodged and case was started at Amdanga P.S. The vehicle was seized by the police and after release of the damaged vehicle from the court, the complainant approached the O.P No. 4 for repair and estimate cost of such repair. The O.P No. 4 for inspection of the damaged vehicle and estimate the repairing of the vehicle took an advance of Rs. 10,000/- and the estimate was submitted subsequently of Rs. 4,03,599/-. The complainant informed the said fact to O.P insurance company for their inspection and appointment of surveyor.
2. The O.P Nos. 1, 2 and 4 contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint.
3. The complainant claimed a sum of Rs. 4,03,599/- towards the repairing charges of the said vehicle, but the licensed independent surveyor appointed by O.P Nos. 1 and 2 assessed the loss only to the tune of Rs. 2,39,782.92. The complainant against the decision of insurance company went to Ld. Ombudsmen, but he also dismissed the case of the complainant and therefore, O.P Nos. 1 and 2 stated that there was no deficiency in service on their part and as they prayed for dismissal of the case.
4. In their w/v O.P No. 4 stated that O.P No. 4 is the authorized service centre of the manufacturer of the said vehicle.
5. The complainant thereafter did not keep any contact with O.P No. 4 and ultimately after the lapse of several years O.P No. 4 on 23.03.2010 sold the vehicle as scrap by Rs. 45,000/- and the said amount was adjusted with the carriage rent as the complainant agreed to bear at the time of giving instruction to O.P No. 4 for execution of the damaged repairing work. In view of the said fact O.P No. 4 stated that O.P No. 4 cannot be held responsible for the payment of the amount as claimed by the complainant.

After hearing both sides Ld. District Commission passed the following order on 13.03.2018.

That the CC No. 335/2011 is allowed on contest with cost against the O.P Nos. 1 and 2 and dismissed ex parte without cost a