Date of filing:- 24/09/2016.
Date of Order:-12/03/2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 18 of 2016.
Basudev Pradhan S/o. Rajindra Pradhan, R/o-Juba, Ps.Sareipali, District–Mahasmund, C.G., At present R/o. Pandkipali, Ps. Sohela, Dist-Bargarh, Odisha.
..... ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
Branch Manager Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited through Chawla Complex Mezanine Floor, Sai Nagar, Devendra Nagar Road Raipur., C.G., Pin-492009.
Claim Manager Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Corporate Claims Department Vishranti Malram Towers, No-2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(OMR), Karapakkam Chennai-600097. ..... ..... ..... .Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri A.K.Dash, Advocate with others Advocates.
For the Opposite Parties:- Sri P.K.Mahapatra, Advocate with others Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.12/03/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief facts of the case ;-
The case of the Complainant has been filed pertaining to the deficiencies in rendering service and unfair trade practice being committed on the part of the Opposite Parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the following ground.
The Complainant being the owner of the vehicle one Bolero plus bearing Regd No. CG-04-HC-3404, registered for personal use, has insured the same with the Opposite Parties Company vide Policy No. VPC0286404000102 by paying required amount of premium on Dt.18.01.2013 to Dt.17.01.2014 , the subsisting period of insurance. The insurance company of the Opposite Parties is a Company having their business across the Country, as such has insured the same at Chhattisgarh and that during the subsistence of the insurance period the said vehicle met with an accident at Chand Tipa Bridge, Padampur District Bargarh consequent upon which a P.S. Case was registered which is pending in the court of SDJM Padampur vide G.R. Case No.350 of 2013. And in the said accident the vehicle got damaged substantially to which immediately the Complainant reported before the Opposite Parties and in response the Opposite Party No.1(one) deputed one Surveyor namely Suvasis, on his direction the Complainant repaired the Vehicle at OSL Auto Car Pvt Ltd Sambalpur, the Authorised Service Centre of the Opposite Parties which incurred an amount of Rs. 3,57,899/-(Rupees three lakh fifty seven thousand eight hundred ninety nine)only
In furtherance to his case the Complainant claimed for the amount from the Opposite Parties and has filed all required documents but to his surprise the Opposite Party set over the matter without taking any steps for a long time for which after several reminder over phone and writing too the Opposite Parties did not take any steps to settle the claim, thus the cause of action arose to file the case on Dt.15.04.2014 and subsequently thereafter, while repeatedly reminded them for settlement of his claim claiming thereby such action of the Opposite Parties amounting to unfair trade practice and deficiencies in rendering him service for which has sustained mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss and has claimed an amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only as compensation and Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only against litigation expenses besides the amount of repair Rs. 3,57,899/-(Rupees three lakh fifty seven thousand eight hundred ninety nine)only spent by him from his own sources. He has relied on the following documents in support of his case.
C.C copy of the F.I.R.,final form in G.R Case No.350 of 2013 pending in the court of S.D.J.M. Padampur.
Letter of the Complainant to the O.Ps.
C.C. copy of the R.C. Book of the Vehicle bearing No-CG-04-HC-3404.
Photocopy of the D.L. of the driver Subash Murmu.
Photocopy of the money receipt of OSL Auto care Sambalpur (3 sheet).
Certificate of Insurance vide No-VPC086404000101 issued by Royal Sundaram G.I.C.Ltd.
Letter of the O.P. to the Complainant on Dt.13.03.2014.
On perusal of the Complaint, it’s supporting documents and on hearing the counsels of the Complainant the case was admitted and notice was served upon the Opposite Parties and in it’s response both of them appeared and filed their Joint version before the Forum, through their Advocate which are all an evasive one to the case of the Complainant.
In the averments made by the Opposite Parties in their version , they have contended that the claim of the Complainant has rightly been closed due to the non-submission of the claim form even after several reminder made from their side, hence is not maintainable besides others.
The further rival contention of the Opposite Parties is that the claim was barred by limitation U/s 24(A) of the Act since the ultimate cause of action arose on Dt. 13.03.2014 and since the case has been filed before the Forum on Dt.07.09.2016. Secondly they have also denied to have their liability for the claim of the Complainant since it lacks territorial Jurisdiction in filing the case before the Forum.
In furtherance to their plea of denial of having any liability to make good of the loss sustained by the Complainant caused by the damage to his vehicle in view of the fact that the claim has been lodged belatedly after eleven days of the alleged accident, Even then they have deputed one Surveyor namely Bipin Pattanaik to assess the loss and as per his survey an amount of Rs.1,92,000/-(Rupees one lakh ninety two thousand)only has been caused after deducting depreciation, salvage and policy excess. Further more they have also contended that to ascertain the genuineness of the claim one Mr. Debajit Chakrabarty has been appointed to investigate and has relied on his report to that effect.
Also the Opposite Parties have contended by way of their version that since the Complainant did not co-operate with the Opposite Parties in complying the required information as sought for by their investigator, hence rightly closed the claim of the Complainant. And to substantiate their case have relied on the following documents.
Copy of the letter Dt.13/03/2014 with RPAD receipt.
Copy of the policy with terms and conditions.
Copy of the claim form.
Copy of the survey report.
Copy of the letter Dt.21/08/2013.
Copy of the investigation report.
Copy of letter Dt.26/09/2013.
Copy of letter Dt.26/11/2013.
Copy of letter Dt.07/01/2014.
Copy of letter Dt.19/02/2014.
Having gone through the Complaint, it’s supporting documents and the version and the documents filed by the Opposite Parties and on hearing the respective counsels of the Parties we feel it necessary to adjudicate the case on the following point for the just decision of the case.
Whether the case is barred by limitation as per the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ?
Whether the case is not maintainable in view of the territorial jurisdiction ?
Whether unfair trade practice and deficiencies in rendering service to the Complainant has been committed on the Part of the Opposite Party ?
Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as sought for by him ?
While considering the points as to whether the case as has been filed by the Complainant within the period of Limitation as has been contended by the Opposite Parties that the last date of cause of action if at all has arosed i.e. on Dt.13.03.2014,and as per the provision of the Act U/s24 (A) the limitation in filing should have been filed within the said stipulated period but the same has been filed beyond the said period as such it is not maintainable and in support of his such pleas has referred some decisions of the Higher Forum, but on the contrary it reveals from the record read with the same Provision U/s24 the clause (2) which has empowered the Forum to entertain the Complaint at a belated stage too if the Complainant satisfies the Forum with sufficient reason for not being able to file the same within the stipulated period of limitation and in this case the Complaint has been admitted by the Forum being satisfied with the plea of the Complainant by filing a petition with sufficient reason as stated therein for such delay in filing the same. In view of such circumstances we express our view that the case in hand is maintainable and answered accordingly in favor of the Complainant.
Secondly while dealing with the question of maintainability of the case in view of the territorial jurisdiction as per the Consumer Protection Act 1986, in this context the Opposite Parties have vehemently objected with the support of some relevant provision of the Act as envisaged U/s 11, and have claimed to dismiss the case as the forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the same, but on the contrary the counsel for the Complainant also pressed his points of argument very firmly in support of his case, And on perusal of the materials available in the record and the decision cited by the Opposite Parties it clearly reveals that the insurance policy has been admittedly commenced for the indemnification of the loss if any to the vehicle by receiving the required amount of the premium and also it reveals from the record that the Opposite Parties have their branch office at some limited places but carrying on their business all over the country through their agents in every corner of the country, further it came to our notice that immediately after the said accident when they were apprised of the same by the Complainant, they have taken cognizance of the same and have accordingly deputed their Investigator, Surveyor to assess the loss and all other necessary requirement of their end irrespective of their views in making over the loss to the Complainant or not, but from such act of the Opposite Parties it can be safely deduced that they have got the jurisdiction in entertaining the case, in addition to that as it has been rightly referred the provision of the Act U/s 11 (2) and have taken a plea of that the Forum lacks Jurisdiction to entertain the case in view of the Clause ( a ) and ( b ) of the same but they have over viewed the clause (c) of the same, delving deep in to the materials available in the record we came to know that the occurrence of the accident has taken place in a village over a bridge nearer to Padampur which is very much evident from the police paper relating to the case vide G.R. Case 350 0f 2013 which has been admitted by the Opposite Parties too, so in view of such circumstances the measure part of action i.e the accident for which the total episode of dispute arosed, has taken place within the Jurisdiction of this Forum as the cause of action constitutes of a bundle of facts, but not necessarily only one date, time or any single fact, hence the pleas of the Opposite Parties so far as lack of jurisdiction of the Forum in entertaining the case is not tenable in the eye of law hence we are express our firm view in affirmative to the case of the Complainant and accordingly answered in favor of the Complainant.
Thirdly while answering there has been commitment of unfair trade practice and deficiencies in rendering service to the Complainant, in this context we would like to refer our discussion and the views taken thereof, wherein it has been very minutely discussed the facts and law in details and have expressed our logistic views, in furtherance to our such views we would like to make it clear the ambit and the purpose of the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the legislature, the purpose the such enactment is to protect the consumer in a summary trail basis in a speedy manner from the unfair trade practice of the traders, but in this particular case it reveals from the materials available in the record, it seems to the Forum to linger the matter by playing in a tactical manner taking advantage of the technicalities of Law.
It has also been observed that the Opposite Parties are very much aware of the fact of the accident and have also instructed the Complainant to repair the said damaged vehicle in their Authorized Service Center and also have deputed their technician and experts to assess the loss and to investigate in to the case, accordingly they have done so and have reported to that effect, but they have not taken the Complainant in to their confidence and have not given any chance to him to be present with those personnel while they were doing their investigation or assessment, but have given their report as stated in their version and have fixed a value of such repair without the knowledge of the Complainant hence it creates a clouds of doubt in the mind of the Complainant and in the mind of the Forum, and also is violation to the principle of natural justice hence those reports are not binding upon the Complainant, further they have sought for the documents from the Complainant repeatedly time and again though it has already been supplied to them, and also those facts are within their knowledge from their own investigation, on the basis of such available materials with them they could have awarded the claim amount, but instead of doing that they have taken different pleas which are not sustainable in the eye of law and has closed the claim of the Complainant on Dt.19.02.2014 which is nothing but amounting to unfair trade practice and deficiencies in rendering service on their part, in view of the above facts and circumstances we are of the view that the Opposite Parties are very much liable there under, hence in our consensus view the answer of the point is expressed in favor of the Complainant.
Fourthly so far the question of entitlement of the claim of the Complainant, since we have already discussed in details of the facts and law relating to the case in hand in our foregoing paragraphs and have expressed our views in affirmative to the case of the Complainant, now we are of the views that the Complainant is very much entitled to the claim as he has sought for, for which both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable, hence Order follows.
O R D E R
Hence the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,57,899/-(Rupees three lakh fifty seven thousand eight hundred ninety nine)only with an interest @ 6% (six percent) per annum from the date of filing of the case till the date of Order and are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only as compensation within thirty days of receipt of the order failing which the total amount would carry an interest @ 9%(nine percent) per annum till actual realization of the total amount.
In the result the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Parties and the same is pronounced to-day i.e. on Dt.12.3.2018 in the open Forum and accordingly the case is disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t
I agree
(Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (w)
