Date of filing:- 11/03/2020.

Date of Order:-19/03/2024.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

B A R G A R H (ODISHA).

Consumer Complaint No. 31 of  2020.

            Sri Sibaji Sushari, aged about 50(fifty) years, Son of Hazaru Sushari, Resident of Parmanpur, Po- Tope, Ps. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh-768027    

                                                                                    .....       ....     .....           Complainant.

-: V e r s u s :-

1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. represented through Senior Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. ltd. At. V.S.S. Marg, Sambalpur, Po/Ps. Sambalpur(Town), Dist. Sambalpur.
2. The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. ltd. At Canal Avenue, Ward No. 16, Near Private Bus Stand, Bargarh, Po. Bargarh, Ps. Bargarh(Town) Dist. Bargarh.
3. M/s H.K.Motoers, represented through its Manager, At. Tumbesinga, N.H.6, Sambalpur-768005.               

                                                .....       .....       .....   Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :-            Sri T.C.Tripathy, Advocate with associates.

For the Opposite Party No.1(one)      

 and Opposite Party No.2(two) :-        Sri P.K.Mahapatra, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party No.3(thre):-     Ex-parte.         

                                                            -: P  R  E  S  E  N  T :-

Smt. Jigeesha Mishra               .....       .....       .....       .....       .....       P r e s i d e n t.

Smt. Anju Agrawal             .....            .....       .....       .....       .....       M e m b e r (W).

Dt.19/03/2024.                                 -: J   U  D   G  E  M  E  N  T:-

Presented by Smt. Anju Agrawal, Member(w):-   

1)         The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is the owner of a Truck bearing Regd No. OD-15-S-6942 and the said vehicle was insured by the Opposite Party No.2(two) vide Insurable Policy bearing No.345601/31/2018/1120 valid from 03-07-2017 to midnight of 02-07-2018. The sum assured amount has been fixed to the tune of Rs. 14,00,000/-(Rupees fourteen lakh)only. During the validity period of insurance policy in the night of 25^th day of November 2019, the said vehicle met with an accident at Andharkote Turning for which Bhanjanagar P.S. Case No. 873 dt. 26-11-2017 was registered and in the said accident the vehicle got completely damaged. The Complainant informed about the accident to the insurance company of Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite Party No.2(two) and the Opposite Parties appointed a spot surveyor, as the vehicle was completely damaged the vehicle was taken to Opposite Party No.3(three). After dismantling the Opposite Party No.2(two) estimated the cost of the vehicle as Rs. 18,33,629/-(Rupees eighteen lakhs thirty three thousand six hundred twenty nine)only i.e. more than  the sum assured amount in presence of Surveyor and the Complainant informed the estimated cost to the Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite Party No.2(two) to settle to claim on total loss basis. After an year of accident the Opposite Party No.1(one) behind the back of Complainant had deputed Sri B.K.Patnaik as final surveyor and the final surveyor estimated the repairing cost at Rs. 6,00,000/-(Rupees six lakh)only before dismantling the vehicle which the Complainant knew on dt, 18-09-2018 after receiving mail from Opposite Party No.1(one), The Complainant lodged his grievance to the Grievance Redressal Officer of Opposite Party No.1(one) by registered post on 16-08-2018 to consider his claim on basis of total loss but no one responded and on Dt. 13-12-2019 the ombudsmen ordered for dismantling the vehicle and reconsider the claim of Complainant and the Opposite Party No.1(one) further reassessed it at Rs. 8,10,000/-(Rupees eighty lakh ten thousand)only. The Opposite Party No.1(one) thereafter vide its letter Dt. 03-02-2020 and 26-02-2020 asked the Complainant to submit the bill regarding cost of the vehicle along with other documents, the final surveyor of Opposite Party No.1(one) has suppressed the actual facts and cost of repair for which the Complainant protested the final surveyor and due to non settlement of insurance claim the vehicle is still lying unrepairable.

            Being aggrieved by the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two), the Complainant filed this complaint before this
Commission praying that the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) to be directed to pay to the Complainant the sum of Rs. 16,00,000/-(Rupees sixteen lakh)only along with pendent lite and future interest till the date of realization of the amount besides cost of the litigation.

2)         The case of the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) is that the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) has jointly filed its version and submitted that the Complainant is not a consumer. The Opposite Party No.2(two) has insured one package policy for “Goods carrying commercial vehicle” in short GCCV bearing No. 34560/31/2018/1120 in respect of the LPT-3118 vehicle bearing Regd No. OR-15-S-6942 owned by the Complainant and the said policy was valid from 0:00 hours of Dt. 03-07-2017 to midnight of Dt. 02-07-2018. After getting intimation about the accident the Opposite Parties carried out all the formalities and deputed IRDA licensed surveyor Er. S.B.Choudhury to conduct spot surveyor to ascertain the actual damages and Er. B.K.Pattnaik to finally assess the damage and loss of the vehicle. The Opposite Parties vide its several letters requested the Complainant to comply with submission of required documents for early settlement of claim. The Opposite Parties received the spot survey report on Dt. 19-12-2017, final survey without dismantling the vehicle on dt. 17-09-2018 from respective surveyors and the final surveyor has assessed the approximate loss due to accident on repair basis as Rs. 6,00,000/-(Rupees six lakh)only after deduction of policy excess plus approximate salvage value. The Opposite Parties decided to settle the claim on final surveyor report but the Complainant write letters and email and requested the Opposite Parties to settle the claim on total loss basis for the sum assured of Rs. 14,00,000/-(Rupees fourteen lakh)only. The vehicle was not dismantled and repaired, the Complainant in the meantime approached the Grievance Redressal Officer and the Insurance Ombudsman gave direction to settle the claim on total loss and in the award the Insurance Ombudsman has directed the company to engage the same surveyor to re-assess the loss after dismantalisation of vehicle and the surveyor has submitted report on dt. 16-01-2020 where the loss was assessed the approximate loss due to accident on repair basis at Rs. 8,10,000/-(Rupees eight lakh ten thousand)only. The Opposite Parties vide letter on dt. 20-01-2020 has sent subsequent letters to repair the vehicle but the Complainant did not show any interest for which the Opposite Parties were bound to close the claim file of the Complainant as “NO CLAIM”. There lies no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant to be dismissed against Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite Party No.2(two).

3)         The case of the Opposite Party No.3(three) is that the Opposite Party No.3(three) did not appear before this Commission, hence Opposite Party No.3(three) is set ex-parte.

4)         Perused the documents, as well as oral submissions filed by the Parties and following issues are framed:-           

Issues

1. Whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in their service ?
2. What relief the Complainant is entitled for ?         

Issue No.1(one)

5)         It is an admitted fact that the vehicle bearing Regd. No. OR-15-S-6942 is insured with the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) vide policy No. 3408/00096115/0000, the insured period being 0:00 on 03-07-2017 to midnight of dt. 02-07-2018, the IDV of the vehicle being Rs. 14,00,000/-(Rupees fourteen thousand)only. For the said insurance policy, the Complainant had paid premium of Rs. 42,629/-(Rupees forty two thousand six hundred twenty nine)only to the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two). During the period of validity of insurance on dt. 25-11-2017 aforesaid vehicle met with an accident and as per the instruction of Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) the aforesaid vehicle was estimated in the workshop of Opposite Party No.3(three). The spot surveyor estimated Rs.18,33,629/-(Rupees eighteen lakhs thirty three thousand six hundred twenty nine)only and final surveyor estimated Rs. 6,00,000/-(Rupees six lakh)only, being dissatisfied with the final survey report, the Complainant placed his grievance before the ombudsman on dt. 30-08-2018 and on dt. 13-12-2019 the ombudsman ordered to re-assess the loss and reconsider the claim a fresh. The loss assessed after dismantling at repairable basis was estimated at Rs. 8,10,081/-(Rupees eight lakh ten thousand eighty one)only. The Complainant is not agreed for treating his claim as per the surveyor report and the surveyor report filed reflects that there is difference in repairing estimate. The Complainant has filed a letter Dt. 01-06-2018 to the Opposite Party No.2(two) regarding early settlement of vehicle at Rs. 12,00,000/-(Rupees twelve lakh)only.

6)         The Hon'ble Supreme Court in “New India Assurance Co. ltd Vrs Pradeep Kumar (2009) 7 SCC 787” held that “Surveyor's report” is not the last and final word. It is not that sacrosanct that it can not be departed from it is not conclusive. The approved Surveyor's report may be the basis of foundation for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of loss suffered by the insured but surely such report is neither binding upon the insurer not insured.

7)         Accordingly the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) is directed to settle the claim at Rs.12,00,000/-(Rupees twelve lakh)only. Non settlement of claim when the insurance is under the validity period amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two). The Opposite Party No.3(three) is not laible for deficiency in service caused by Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two).

            The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No. 2(two)

8)         As per supra discussion, the Complainant is entitled for relief claimed.

                        Accordingly it is ordered.

                                                            O  R  D  E  R

9)         The Complaint is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) and dismissed ex-parte against Opposite Party No.3(three). The Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 12,00,000/-(Rupees twelve lakh)only towards repairing charge of vehicle bearing Regd No.  OD-15-S-6942 along with Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only for mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards litigation expenses to the Complainant within one month of this order, failing which the entire awarded amount shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till realization.

10)       Accordingly the order is pronounced in the open Commission to-day i.e.  Dt.19/03/2024 and the case is allowed against the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) and disposed off.

                                                                                             Typed to my dictation

                                                                                              and corrected by me.

                                    I agree,                                                 ( Smt. Anju Agrawal)

                                                                                                     M e m b e r(w).

                       (Smt. Jigeesha Mishra)

                              P r e s i d e n t.