Date of filing:- 21/12/2017.
Date of Order:-13/11/2019.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 65 of 2017.
Sarad Kumar Padhan, S/o-Late Rusiram Padhan, aged about 58(fifty eighty)years, Occupation –Advocate, At/Post/Dist-Bargarh. ..... ..... .....Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. through Legal Manager, O/o-ICICI Lombard G.I.C. Ltd 3st Floor, Plot No-29, Anuj Building, Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Pin-751007.
Proprietor, Akash Motors Pvt Ltd, Near Bhatli Chowk, N.H. 6, Po/Ps/Dist-Bargarh-768028(Odisha). ..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri P.K.Mahapatra, Advocate with others Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one) :- Sri A.K.Dash, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No.2(two):- Sri M.L.Dash, 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.13/11/2019. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief Facts of the case ;-
Being aggrieved with the unfair trade practice and deficiencies of service towards him on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has preferred to take the shelter of the Forum U/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986 on the following ground.
The case of the Complainant in nut sell is that he has purchased a Hero Glamour Motor Cycle from the Opposite Party No.2(two) by paying the price of the bike along with the premium amount to get it insured and the fees for registration with the R.T.A. Bargarh, the authorized dealer of the manufacturer of the same who got it insured with Opposite Party No.1(one) vide the policy No-3005/35479217/10216/000 which was valid from Dt.10.02.2017 to Dt.09.02.2018 and registered the same with the R.T .A. Bargarh vide Regd No-OD-17H-9232.
But due to the hard luck of the Complainant the said Bike met with an accident on Dt.07.03.2017 at about 4.30 P.M., while he was going to his village with his son who was driving the same and on the way while he was attending the call of nature by parking the same to the road side and the Complainant was standing at a little distance, another motorcycle came with a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the said bike of the Complainant from it’s back causing severe damage to the Bike and also on the body of the Complainant.
Subsequently thereafter the Complainant was admitted in the hospital but even then has lodged his claim for indemnification of the loss due to the damage before the Opposite Party No.1(one) through the Opposite Party No.2(two) vide claim No.MOT0441831and also the matter was reported before the Police at Bhatli Police station by one Sudhansu Sekhar Padhan which was registered vide P.S.Case No.40 Dt. 07.03.2017.
On being asked by the Opposite Parties the Complainant sent the valid Driving license of his son who was practically driving on the relevant day but at the relevant time of accident the vehicle was parked to the side of the road, and got the vehicle repaired with the Opposite Party No.2(two) which cost an amount of Rs.29,812/-(Rupees twenty nine thousand eight hundred twelve)only and on being pressurized he had to pay the total amount even though the insurance period was subsisting by then.
The further case of the Complainant is that even though the claim for indemnification of the cost and expenditure of the damage was made before the Opposite Party No.1(one) he did neither settle the claim nor repudiated the same for which the Complainant has to suffer both mentally physically and financially which of such act on the part of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiencies of service and as such are jointly and severally liable there under, thus has filed the case against both the Parties claiming Rs.60,000/-(Rupees sixty thousand)only towards his mental agony and physical harassment and the cost of the repair Rs.29,812/-(Rupees twenty nine thousand eight hundred twelve)only with pendetilite and future interest, And in substantiating his case has relied on the following documents,
Insurance Policy No-3005/35479217/10216/000,
Invoice copy Akash Motors on Dt.12.04.2017,
R.C.Book of the Vehicle vide Regd No-OD-17H-9232,
Retail Invoice issued by the Akash Motors on Dt.9.02.2017,
Copy of Letter of the Opposite Party No.1(one) to the Complainant,
Copy of Letter sent to the Opposite Party by the Complainant,
Copy of Police Paper vide C.J No-302 of 2017.
Having gone through the Complaint, it’s supporting documents and on hearing the Advocate concerned the case was admitted and notice was served on the Opposite Parties and in response both of them appeared before the Forum through their advocate and have filed their version.
The rival contention of the Opposite Party No.2(two) is that he has sold the concerned vehicle to the Complainant but has never pressurized him for the insurance as has been claimed by him and also admitted the case of the Complainant but has denied of being involved in any manner with the case as such has claimed for dismissal of the case against him.
And so far as the averments made in the version of the Opposite Party No.1(one) is concerned it has admitted the case of the Complainant with regard to his purchase of the Vehicle and the insurance of the same and also the accident occurred with the same, but has categorically denied for being liable to indemnify the damage and the cost of the repair of the said vehicle of the Complainant on the ground that as the said insurance policy is valid subject to some condition such as the Complainant should have a valid driving license at the time of driving the same, which he does not have as such is a violation of the terms and condition of the Policy, in furtherance to it’s averments it has denied to be liable for any claim or compensation thereto as it has deputed his surveyor to verify the facts and to report with regard to the claim of the Complainant and also has averted therein that the surveyor has rightly surveyed the incident and has also asked the Complainant to produce the driving license of the Complainant but as he has failed to produce the same as such are not liable for any action in connection with deficiencies of service or for any payment against the claim of the Complainant in view of such circumstances has prayed before the Forum to dismiss the case against it.
Having gone through the complaint, the version of the Opposite Parties and the documents available before us having regard the submission made before us, some of the following issues have cropped up for proper adjudication of the case,
Whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in rendering service to the Complainant ?
Whether the Complainant is entitled to any compensation and cost of the repair of the vehicle ?
While dealing with Issue No.1(one) as to whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in rendering service to the Complainant, we examined the materials available in the record and found that it is an admitted facts that the accident has occurred with the vehicle of the Complainant and also it is fact that the matter has been reported before the Police Station of Bhatli and also the claim has been made before the Opposite Party immediately after the said accident, also it reveals from the F.I.R lodged by one Sudhansu Sekhar Padhan who was a passer by on the same road that at the relevant time of the said accident the said vehicle was parked on the road side and the Complainant was attending call of nature but another unknown person passing by that road on his motor cycle suddenly dashed against the vehicle of the Complainant causing damage to the same vehicle and to the body of the Complainant.
Also on close scrutiny of the Police paper available in the record establishes the presence of the son of the Complainant from whom some materials was seized with regard to the vehicle in presence of the witness by the Police, as such the claim of the Complainant that at the time of the accident the said vehicle was being driven by his son namely Pratik Priya Pradhan can not be brushed aside further more it is clearly established that at the relevant time of accident the said vehicle was parked to the side of the road, so the claim of the Complainant that at the time of accident he was going to his village with his son cannot be disbelieved and further more his son having a valid Driving License cannot be debarred from driving the vehicle of his father Complainant in his presence and while the driving license of the son of the Complainant as a beneficiary, being supplied with the Opposite Parties there is no violation of the term and condition of the Insurance policy and also no bar on the part of the Opposite Party No.1(one) in indemnifying the expenses raised against the repair of the same but it has not done for which of it’s such acts amounts to deficiencies in rendering service to the Complainant in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above we are of an assertive view to the case of the Complainant accordingly it is answered in favor of the Complainant.
And while considering the facts and circumstances of the case in relation to the case of the Opposite Party No.2(two) there is not even a scrape of paper available before the Forum in shape of evidence to prove that on it’s persuasion or otherwise the said vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party No.1(one), hence we don’t feel any nexus between him and the act of the Opposite Party No.1(one) and also there is nothing specific allegation is proved against it as such we are of the view to exonerate the OP No.2(two) from the allegation labeled against him.
Secondly while considering the Issue No.2(two), as we have already discussed in detail about the case and have unanimously opined in favor of the Complainant further more considering the available invoice copy issued by the authorized dealer of the manufacturer of the vehicle in question with regard to the expenditure incurred due to the said accident we are of the view that the Complainant is entitled to the cost of the repair as per the invoice issued by the Opposite Party No.2(two) and also is entitled to compensation amounting to Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only in lieu of the mental and physical harassment undergone by him due to such deficient acts of the Opposite Party No.1(one) as such accordingly our view are expressed in favor of the Complainant. Hence our order follows:-
-: O R D E R :-
Hence in view of the above facts and circumstances the Opposite Party No.1(one) is directed to pay an amount of Rs.29,812/-(Rupees twenty nine thousand eight hundred twelve)only towards the cost of repair of the vehicle in question with an interest @ 6%(six percent) per annum from the date of filling of the case till date of Order and also directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only to him in lieu of his mental agony and physical harassment undergone within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order in default of which the total amount would carry an interest @ 9%(nine percent) per annum till actual realization of the same.
The Opposite Party No.2(two) is exonerate from the case as because nothing specific allegation labeled against him.
Accordingly the order being pronounced in the open Forum is disposed off to-day i.e. on Dt.13.11.2019.
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)
Uploaded by
Sri Dusmanta Padhan
Office Assistant, Bargarh
