Orissa

Kendujhar

CC/34/2016

Radhakanta Patra - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Magma Fin Corp Limited, Kolkata - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Tushar Kanta Samanta & P.K. Acharya

28 Jul 2017

ORDER

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

                                    CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO 34 OF 2016

Radhakanta Patra,aged about 51 years,

S/o-Subana Patra,

At/P.o-Tangarani,

Via: Jhumpura, P.S: Sadar,

Dist: Keonjhar-758031……………………………………………………………………………………..complainant

Vrs

1.Magama fin corp Limited, Kolkata,

Represent through the Branch Manager,

Keonjhar Branch, Singh  Market Complex,

1^st floor , Sirajuddin Chhak,

Keonjhar-758001

2. The Branch Manager,

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

At/PO/PS – Barbil,

Dist- Keonjhar-758001………………………………………………………………………………………O.P Parties    

         Present:

    Shri Purusottam Samantara, President

    Smt. B.Giri Member(W)

 

    Advocate for complainant-Tusar Kanta Samanta & associate

    Advocate for O.P1- None

    Advocate for  O.P-2 –P.K Pothal

 

  Date of filing-   03.08.2016                                                                        Date of order-28.07.2017

 

 

1. Sri Purusottam Samantara   -In brief, the complainant owned a Mahindra verito car being financed by  Magama FIN Crop Limited and  procured comprehensive Insurance from Oriental Insurance Company on dt 13.01.2016.

 

 

2.    The complainant stated the  policy  No-  31/2016/2803 and period of Insurance from                   dt 23.01.2016 to dt 22.01.2017, Model- Mahindra Vertio – VIBB D4 against a premium of         Rs 7,879/-.

3. The complainant also stated, the vehicle bearing Regd No- OD-09A-1569 forcibly snatched away on the  date of 22.03.2016 near Jhumpura Bazar and the miscreant while fled away  dashed with a person thereby heavy damage sustained and accordingly  claim lodged with the Insurer. The claim No- 31/2016/000117.

 

 

4.  Further stated, On repair of the vehicle incurred Rs 2,65,000/- where as O.P 2 settled the matter , in disbursement Rs 1,50,000/- without any  justifications  and the surveyor assessed the amount as Rs-1,77,374/-. Pleaded the settlement is arbitrary, irrational and not as per the rule, prayed the settlement be made rationally and with other relief deemed fit under the law. Relied on estimate copy, claim intimation, EMI schedule FIR copy, RC Book, Policy copy, Money receipts and affidavit.

 

 

5. In Pursuant   to notice, The O.P-1 neither appeared nor made any version.

 

 

6.The O.P-2 contested the case , in admission that policy issued to the Insured, The occurrence is  thereby intimated  for  claim which  is duly lodged and disbursement  has  to be made in settlement.

 

 

7. Further the O.P-2  controverterd  that the case has no cause of action, bad for misjoinder and  non joinder of parties, facts beyond the knowledge, thus not maintainable.

 

 

8.  Further added as per the investigation report, the petitioner had left the vehicle with key to nearby  beetel  shop and culprit managed to take away the vehicle, which is a gross violation of terms & conditions of the policy.

 

 

9.   Also rebutt, the fact has been reported to the police by one named Santosh kumar Giri. the complainant turn out in reporting the matter before police station is secondary.

 

 

10.  The O.P also submitted, the matter has been investigated and made appointment with a survey as per the rule, the surveyor assessed the amount as Rs 1,77,374/- and in view of the above noted circumstance, the matter  was settled  on Non- standard basis for an amount of        Rs 1,50,000/- and same is disbursed electronically. Hence demand made after settlement and remittance to the insured no more conferred a right to claim further, so the case attracts dismissal as the petitioner fails to substantiate deficiency of service, harassment  & mental agony. Relied on supply report, Investigation report & claim settlement proforma details.

 

11.  Heard the arguments advanced at bar and perused the case record.

 

 

 

12.   On the outset, we observe , the O.P-1 neither appeared  nor  made any version and no clinching  evidence brought before this forum to make implead on the issue of deficiency of service , being the sole and prime mandate of law for  adjudication.

 

13.   On the contrary, the Oriental Insurance Co Ltd (hereinafter called) as O.P-2, not in the dispute on the nature of occurrence, lodge of report and intimation on claim.

 

 

14.  It is a fact as on the record, surveyor is deputed and settlement made and the issue left out being the quantum of settlement not satisfactory and thereby disbursement thereof.

 

 

15.   It is on the record, the  deputed surveyor assessed the amount to the tune  of Rs 1.77,374/- So also the  department made appreciation to allow and the authority settled the amount to Rs1,50,000/-on the basis of non-standard claim settlement.

 

 

16.  It is settled  principle, Non  standard claim is assessed on the basis of three principle as per ratio decided under  the bench mark authority, National Insurance Company Vs Prem Chand, decided  on 12.03.2001(NC) and mandate relates to the points of description as underline.

 

 (i) Under declaration of licensed carrying capacity

 (ii) Over loading of vehicle beyond licensed carrying capacity.

 (iii) Any other branch of warranty / condition of policy including limitation as to use.

 

 

17.  In the present case, the application of rule three has neither complete ascertained nor 25% has made deducted and reading of Proforma claim settlement list exhibit shows, the deduction has been made arbitrary, irrationally  and illegally without any basis of justification.

 

 

18.   Even if be that  the case, having making Insurance, the Insured is not supposed  to guard  the vehicle in standing side to it, in principle which is settled as inconsistent modalities framed  in the  policy being far fetched from reality. In the present case snatching of vehicle can be happened without or with key, hence the rebutt as advanced is too weak and ill logic to muster any support in favor of deduction. The deduction made is clear-cut arbitrary leading to deficiency of service, being in substantiation.

 

 

19. In view of the above noted discussion; we find the O.P committed deficiency having no substantative materials to violations made under the policy. Rather the O.P-2 is to disburse the surveyor assessment amount along with compensation & cost.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                               

                                                                                O-R-D-E-R

 

 

 

The O.P-2 is hereby directed to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs 27,000/-(twenty seven thousand) as to assessed amount given by the surveyor along with Rs 3,000/-(three thousand only) towards compensation & inclusive of cost within 45 days of this order, failing Rs 20/- per day penalty will accrue on same  from the date of application till complete realization, without any demur.

 

Copy of the Order be made available to the parties as per rule.

File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced, 28^th july 2017  

  

  I agree  

          

                                    

                                    

    (Smt. B. Giri)                                                                                       (Shri Purushottam Samantara)

    Member (W)                                                                                                              President                    

DCDRF, Keonjhar                                                                                                   DCDRF, Keonjhar  

 

 

 

   

 

                                                               Dictated & Corrected

 

 

 

 

 (Shri Purushottam Samantara)

                                                                           (President)

                                                                    DCDRF, Keonjhar