DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:
-ooOoo-
C.D.CASE NO. 98/ 2010
Batakrushna majhi, aged about 32 years,
S/o Sri Gandharba Majhi,
At /PO – Ghatikia, PS – Khandagiri,
Bhubaneswar, Dist - Khurda
…. Complainant
-Vrs.-
1. The Branch –in- Charge, Reliance General Insurance
Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, 5 Janpath, Unit – 3,
Bhubaneswar – 751 001, Dist : Khurda
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd
570, Naigaum Cross Road, Next to Royal
Industrial Estate, Wadala (West), Mumbai – 400 031
… Opp. Parties
For the complainant : Sri P.K.Chinara & Associates (Adv.)
For the O.Ps 1 & 2 : Mr. B.R..Mishra & Associates (Adv.)
DATE OF FILING : 08/03/2010
DATE OF ORDER : 17/10/2022
ORDER
K.C.RATH, PRESIDENT
1. This is an application U/s 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
2. The complainant’s case in brief is that, he purchased a TATA Tipper vehicle bearing registration No.OR-19-1232, from Smt. Santilata Routray on 07/03/2008. Smt. Santilata Routray had insured the vehicle in question while she was the registered owner and the insurance policy was valid from 11/08/2007 to 10/08/2008. On 12/03/2008, the vehicle in question met with an accident at Karadapada. He lodged FIR at the police station in this regard and intimated about the accident to the OP.1 who deputed Mr. D. Nayak, Surveyor , to the spot and as per the advice of Mr.D.Nayak, he shifted the damaged vehicle to Maa Tarini Auto Works, Aiginia, Bhubaneswar for repair. On 21/05/2008, when the complainant met the Claims Manager, Mr. N.R. Bhuyan, for settlement of the claim, the Claims Manager said that the insurance company would not depute any surveyor for final survey as there is no liability on the part of the OP.1. Hence this complaint.
3. On the other hand, the OPs 1 & 2 filed their written version challenging the maintainability of the complaint. According to the OPs, it was not within their knowledge that on 7/3/2008, the vehicle was transferred to the complainant. Neither the original registered owner, Smt. Santilata Routray intimated about the transfer of the vehicle to the OPs, nor did the complainant apply for transfer of policy to his name As at the time of accident, the complainant was not the insured, he is not entitled to any claim for any damage caused to the vehicle due to the
accident. It is further contended by the OPs that, as there is no merit in the complaint, it is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4 Perused the materials on record. Annexure -1, the certificate of registration, indicates that on 7/3/2008, the vehicle bearing registration No. OR-19-1232, was transferred from Smt. Santilata Routray to Batakrushna Majhi. Annexure – 2 is the photocopy of the insurance policy which shows that the insurance policy was valid from 11/08/2007 to 10/08/2008. Annexure – 5 indicates about the truth of the accident. The facts that, the accident took place and the vehicle in question was damaged, are not disputed. The OPs rejected the claim of the complainant on the basis that, the transfer of the vehicle was not intimated to the OPs within the stipulated time, nor was the policy transferred in the name of the new owner i.e. the complainant. The intimation relating to the transfer of the vehicle to the insurer within the stipulated time is a rule of convenience but not a rule carrying so much weight as to infringe the substantive right of the registered owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident. It is not the person who is insured in this case but it is the vehicle which is insured. Therefore, when the vehicle met with accident and it is within the period of validity of the insurance policy, the OPs should have done well to depute the surveyor to assess the loss or damage caused to the vehicle but the OP.1 did not do so, on the basis of a technical plea, which is not acceptable in the juristic science. Therefore, the act on the part of the OP.1, amounts to deficiency in service. But coming to the claim part of the complainant, I find that the complainant has filed a document showing that Maa Tarini Auto Workshop received Rs.2,85,000/- from him towards repair and cost of the spare parts of the damaged vehicle in question. There is no single scrap of paper to show the details of the damage caused to the vehicle and the different spare parts used in the repair of the said vehicle. Such a document vide Annexure-8 does not inspire confidence in us. On this basis, the claim of the complainant cannot be accepted. However, the OPs are held liable for deficiency in service for not deputing the surveyor to assess the loss or damage caused to the vehicle. Hence it is ordered.
ORDER
The complaint is hereby allowed on contest against the OPs 1 & 2. The OPs 1 & 2 jointly & severally liable to compensate the complainant to the extent of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only, for deficiency in service and Rs..10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and a further sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only towards litigation expenses. The order be complied with by the OPs 1 & 2 within a period of thirty days from the date of communication of this order, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to execute the order against the OPs 1 & 2 in accordance with law.
The order is pronounced on this day the 17th October, 2022 under the seal & signature of the President and Member (W) of the Commission.
(K.C.RATH)
PRESIDENT
Dictated & corrected by me
President
I agree
(S.Tripathy)
Member (W)
Transcribed by Smt. M.Kanungo, Sr.Steno
