Orissa

Kendujhar

15/2015

Tapan Kumar Patra - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Divisional Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri B.B. Pradhan & Associates

25 May 2016

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KENDUJHAR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 15 OF 2015

 

    Tapan Kumar Patra, aged 26 years,

    S/o: Kushadhar Patra,

    At/Post/P.S: Joda, (Bachu Hatting),

    Dist- Keonjhar                                               ……………………….Complainant

                            Vrs.

1. Divisional Manager,

    ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.

    Barbil Joda Road, Second Floor, Plot No. 13,

    Village: Sundara Barbil, Dist: Keonjhar-758035

2. General Manager,

    ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.

    414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple,

    Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025                        …………………………Op. Parties

 

PRESENT: SHRI A.K. PUROHIT, PRESIDENT

                 SRI S.C. SAHOO, MEMBER

Advocate for the Complainant: Sri B.B. Pradhan & Associates

Advocate for the OPs: Sri A.K. Pattnaik & R.R. Rana

__________________________________________________________________

Date of Hearing: 3.5.2016                                                  Date of Order: 25.5.2016

Sri S.C. Sahoo, Member: The brief facts of the case are that, complainant is the owner of a Hero Honda Glamour Motor Cycle bearing Engine No. MBLJA06AGEGEF08417 (Black Colour) for Rs.54,819/- from the dealer M/s. Wheels Motors of Barbil- Joda Highway At/P.O- Barbil, Dist- Keonjhar vide Bill No.171, dt.7.7.2014 being registered vide Regn. No.OD-09A-6434 which was insured with OPs from 7.7.2014 to 6.7.2015 on an IDV amount of Rs. 52, 136.00 vide policy No. 3005/23552355/21641/000 and during valid period of Insurance the said vehicle met with an accident of fire on 22.11.2014 while the said vehicle parked in front of his house but in the morning the day after the incident was noticed by the complainant that the vehicle was totally damaged by fire and due to short circuit of ignition electrical circuit under the jurisdiction of Joda Police station and sustained heavy damage. FIR was lodged on 22.11.2014 in the Joda Police station vide Diary entry vide SDE No.493 dt.22.11.14 and intimation was given to Ops Insurance company on 22.11.14 by claiming compensation of the said damaged Motorcycle. But the OPs does not responded to the claim of the complainant till date. Hence this complaint,

            After service of notice, Ops appeared through their engaged counsel filed  written version jointly challenging the maintainability of the present complaint as there is no cause of action and the case is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties and further submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of these  Ops as these Ops have performed their duties chronologically as per procedure with an intention to render service to the insured and deputed the surveyor S.K. Associates for investigation of own damage report is the exemplar that the insurer has performed its duty meticulously and no way turnout to be a case of deficiency of service and stated that complainant has not complied the requirements of insurer in spite of several correspondences for which the claim in question was closed as non settlement of claim as alleged by the complainant is due to the fault of the complainant. Further stated in the version that the insured vehicle during the material time of accident was kept outside of the residence is a contractual liability of the insured to keep the vehicle in a safe custody and due to negligence of the complainant/ insured, the alleged Motorcycle was burnt by some miscreants since there is possibility of short circuit in an open area and further stated that the insurer requested the complainant to submit necessary document like FIR, and fire brigade report to process the OD claim as evident from letters dt.24.6.15 & 1.7.15 but no heed wad paid by the complainant. Hence the OD claim in question has been closed for the pendency of the aforementioned documents. Hence prayed dismissal of the complaint.    

            Heard the learned counsels for the contesting parties and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the alleged vehicle of the complainant bearing No. OD-09A-6434 insured with the OPs Insurance Company and during valid period of insurance it met with an accident and sustained heavy damage. Accordingly claim was lodged which was later closed by the Insurance company. So question remains, whether the close of OD claim made by the Ops insurance company is genuine and if not what relief can be granted.

            In this context learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the accident of the said Motorcycle bearing No. OD-09A-6434 was damaged due to fire of short circuit in the engine was detected in the morning the day after of the accident on 22.11.2014 which was insured with the OPs and the incident was intimated to the OPs as well as to the Police.

 on the other hand learned counsel for OPs relying upon surveyor report submitted that the alleged incident was happened on 15.11.2014 night i.e. 16.11.14 and to this intimation to call centre of OPs was made by the complainant on 17.11.14 which was registered vide claim No.MOT04186657. Hence the complainant in order to patch- up the faults, facts have been suppressed for some illegal gain and the OP requested the complainant to submit some necessary documents like F.I.R & Fire brigade report in order to proceed the OD claim which was communicated to the complainant vide letter dt.24.6.15 & 1.7.15 but no heed was paid by the complainant.

On perusal of available materials in the record it is ascertained that the OPs have not submitted the surveyor report in connection to the alleged accident nor submitted the letters dt.24.6.15 dispatched to the complainant asking for to review the F.I.R & Fire brigade report for processing the OD claim of the complainant and being failure the OD claim was closed due to pendency of aforementioned documents is not believable and in this regard the OPs have not submitted affidavit evidence for which the OPs are liable for the loss caused by the complainant due to the alleged occurrence.

            Hence, it is ordered and Ops are directed to pay a sum of Rs.52,136/-(Fifty two thousand one hundred thirty six) to the complainant towards his OD claim with Rs.1000/- for cost of litigation within 30 days of receipt of this order failing which the entire amount will carry 10% interest per annum till final realization.

     Accordingly the Case is disposed of.

 

 

                                                                                                                        I agree                                                                              

        (Sri S.C. Sahoo)                                                                            (Sri A.K. Purohit)                

            MEMBER                                                                                     PRESIDENT                              

    D.C.D.R.F. Keonjhar                                                                      D.C.D.R.F. Keonjhar

 

 

                                                                 Dictated & Corrected by me

                                                                           (Sri S.C. Sahoo)                                                                                

                                                              Member, D.C.D.R.F. Keonjhar