Appeal Nos. F.A.-02/2013 and F.A.-50/2013. Case: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Dilip Kumar Kar. Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberAppeal Nos. F.A.-02/2013 and F.A.-50/2013
Party NameOriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Dilip Kumar Kar
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. P.K. Debnath, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. A. Nandi, Advocate
JudgesS. Baidya, J. (President) and H. Chakraborty, Member
IssueConsumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15
CitationI (2014) CPJ 283 (Trip.)
Judgement DateFebruary 17, 2014
CourtTripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Judgment:

S. Baidya, J. (President)

  1. These two appeals have arisen out of the same judgment and order dated 12.10.2012 passed by the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. C.C.-17/10 and as such both the appeals are heard together in view of the order passed in F.A-02/13 on 25.9.2013. The appeal No. F.A-02/13 filed on 31.1.2013 by the appellant-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. under Section 15 of the C.P. Act, 1986 is directed against the judgment dated 12.10.2012 passed by the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. C.C.-17/10 whereby the learned District Forum held that the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 4,76,496 minus 25% being the deduction amount for not giving the opportunity to the O.P. to get the damaged vehicle surveyed at the place of occurrence which comes to Rs. 3,57,372 and also Rs. 15,000 only being the cost of lifting the vehicle with the help of Crane and Rs. 7,865 only for getting the vehicle painted along with Rs. 5000 as compensation for harassment and Rs. 3000 as litigation cost.

  2. The case of the appellant/O.P. as narrated in the memo of appeal, in brief, is that the vehicle of the respondent, the complainant in the complaint case was insured with the appellant vide Misc. Class D vehicle package policy No. 321105/31/2009/1081 Truck No. TRO1K 1612 TATA Tipper, 2008 and the sum assured was for Rs. 11,30,500 w.e.f. 29.9.2008 to 28.9.2009 and the policy was issued from the branch office, Athgaon, Gauhati. The Divisional Office of the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Agartala received the first intimation on 15.1.2009 about the accident of vehicle occurred on 10.1.2009 at 12.00 noon near Khowai office Tilla, Tripura West and thereafter, on 24.1.2009 the insured submitted the Motor claim form, but the insured has not submitted the relevant documents namely FIR, final police report, estimate, bill, vouchers, etc. and other vehicular documents. It has also been stated that the Divisional Office on 15.10.2009 wrote a letter to Khowai Police Station for the enquiry report which was received on 11.11.2009 and thereafter on receipt of the investigation report the insurer asked the insured to submit documents of the vehicle in original and the Divisional Office received the original Police report on 17.11.2009. It has also been stated that the Surveyor so engaged by the appellant has assessed the damage to the tune of Rs. 4,45,151 and as the Surveyor has failed to deduct the amount to the extent of 25% for not informing for spot survey, the policy excess, salvage value, for absence of load challan of bricks load, the Original Office, Gauhati of the appellant on 29.12.2009 reassessed and approved for settlement to the tune of Rs. 2,27,000 as full and final, settlement and thus, on 31.12.09 the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Maligaon Branch, Gauhati issued a letter to the insured to provide a 'no objection' certificate from the Financer, TATA Motors in respect of issuing of cheque in his favour, but the complainant did not respond to the matter, rather the respondent being the complainant filed the complaint on 24.3.2010 before the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

  3. It has also been stated in the memo of appeal that the present appellant contested the said complaint case by filing written objection. It has been also alleged that the learned District Forum in passing the impugned judgment only accepted one part of the policy-deduction permissible for 25% on non-spot survey and rejected other permissible deductions of the policy and thereby being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with that judgment dated...

To continue reading

Request your trial