DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:

                                                -oo0oo-

C.D.CASE NO. 209/ 2012

Sri Shyama Sundar Sahoo, Aged about 31 years,

S/o – Jagannath Sahoo, At – Mangalhat, PO- Markedeswar Sahi,

PS- Puri Town, Dist- Puri - 752001

                                                                             ….     Complainant 

                              -Vrs.-

1. The Manager of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance

Company Ltd.

2. The Deputy Manager  Claims of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance company Ltd.

Both are at Plot No.45/46, Second floor, Ashok Nagar,

Bhubaneswar, Dist – Khurda, Odisha

3. Chief Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance

Company Ltd., At- 2nd Floor, Dare House, N.S.C. Bose Road,

               Chennai – 600 001, India.

….     Opp. Parties 

For the complainant      Sri  D.Mahapatra & R.K. Samantray  (Adv.)

For the O.Ps                            Exparte

DATE OF FILING         :         16/07/2012

DATE OF ORDER        :         16/08/2023

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 is the registered owner of the vehicle APE Cargo D-600 bearing registration number OR-13-F-2638. The said vehicle  was duly insured with the OP  Insurance Company  and the insurance was in force with effect from 20/05/2010   to 19/05/2011.  It is alleged by the complainant that, on  25/08/2010,   the vehicle met with an accident at Karua Chhaka. He intimated the fact of accident  to the Insurance Company. Thereafter, he lodged FIR at the concerned police station on 04/09/2010. In the FIR, he wrote the date of accident as 02/09/2010 instead of 25/08/2010.  Due to such discrepancy with regard to the date of accident, the OP  insurance company rejected the claim of the complainant.   Hence this complaint.

3.       On the other hand,  the  OPs  filed written version   contending therein that,  the date of occurrence as mentioned in the FIR differs from the date of occurrence as mentioned in the claim form. The complainant could not explain such discrepancy for which the claim was rejected. Further, it is alleged that, since the claim was not filed within one year from the date of repudiation, the complaint petition is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed. However, subsequently as the OPs remained absent,  they were set exparte and exparte hearing was taken up on 31/07/2023.  

4        Perused the materials on record.  The complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle described as APE Cargo D-600 bearing registration number OR-13-F-2638. The said vehicle  was duly insured with the OPs and the insurance was in force with effect from 20/05/2010   to 19/05/2011. The OP  Insurance company asked for clarification  from the complainant  with regard to the discrepancy as to the date of the accident. True it is in the FIR, the date of accident was written as 02/09/2010  but in the complaint petition, it is written as 25/08/2010. It is also  true that, on intimation by the complainant after the accident, the OP  insurance company deputed its surveyor. Copy of the survey report is available on record. The survey report indicates that, the date of accident was 25/08/2010. When the insurance company was intimated about the accident  and the surveyor was deputed for the purpose who recorded the date of accident in his report. Then there is no reason to dis-believe as to the date of accident. There may be some discrepancy as to the date of accident as revealed from the FIR and the claim form  but the fact remains that the surveyor in its report has correctly mentioned the date of accident. On such technical plea, the claim of a genuine insured should not be rejected. The surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.12,838/-. The complainant has filed certain receipts with regard to the expenses incurred by him for repair of the vehicle in question. But the report of the surveyor is more authentic than the money receipts submitted by the complainant.  Hence   it is ordered.

ORDER

The complaint is  allowed  exparte  against the OPs.  The OPs are jointly & severally   directed to pay Rs.12,838/-  (Rupees twelve  thousand  eight hundred thirty-eight) only to the complainant  Besides, the OPs are  further liable to pay  compensation of Rs. 5,000/-   (Rupees five thousand) only  towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and a  sum of Rs.2000/-  (Rupees two thousand) only towards litigation expenses.  The order be complied with by the OPs jointly & severally   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   in accordance with law.

The order is pronounced on this day the  16^th August,  2023  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