Adv. For the Complainant: - Sri B.C.Pradhan and others
Adv. For O.Ps :- Sri S.M.Dwibedy, and others
Date of filing of the Case :-13.09.2022
Date of Order :- 28.02.2023
JUDGMENT
Fact of the case in nutshell-
(1) The complainant is a bonafide owner of Honda BRV bearing registration No. OD 02 AG -6090 vide engine No. N15A11707354 and chassis No. MAKD 278JG4003185. The complainant renewed its
-2-
insurance policy on dt. 07/03/2022 vide policy No. IIG/83092990 on payment of premium of Rs28,467.00/- which is valid from 07.03.2022 to 06.03.2023.
On dt.16/03/2022 while the complainant drove his vehicle on the road near the turning point of R.T.O office Bolangir town a Hondai Car was coming from the opposite site with high speed suddenly dashed the car of the complainant by which the car was again dashed on a tree standing on the road side, as such the car severely damaged due to the accident.
The complainant communicate the accident to the IFFCOTOKIO General insurance company Ltd. who is the Op. No 1 in this case over telephone and being a policy holder of Honda Car road side Assistance service who is OP. No 2 in this case contact him for proper service. On the next date on 17/03/2022 Honda Car Road side Assistance service pickup and shifted the accident vehicle to Highway Honda , Bhubaneswar from the spot of accident and deposited in his authorised service center.
The O.P No.2 also after receive the vehicle intimated the surveyor of O.P No 1 and 3 who came their and supervised the damaged vehicle and assess the preliminary loss and maching all formalities after convince with OP No.2 on preliminary assessment O.P No.1 directed the OP No.2 to start repair work of damaged vehicle to the tune of Rs3,05,400/- a final bill submitted by O.P No.2 But neither the O.P No. 1 nor Op No. 3 settled the claim of accident till date.
The complainant made several corresponds to the Ops on different dates i.e. on 17/0-6/2022 on 27/06/2022 on 22/07/2022 and 28/07/2022 through mail but all the efforts gone in vain on dt. 28/07/2022 the Op No. 1 intimate Op.No.2 by sending mail that they will unable to process the claim further as they found some discrepancy in the claim , which is communicate by OP No.2 to the complainant Hence this case.
2 To substantiate his case the complainant relied on the following documents.
(1) Xerox copy of the registration certificate given by R.T.O Bhubaneswar.
(2) The Insurance policy certificate from IFFCO TOKIO G.I com. Ltd.
(3) Policy certificate of Honda Car Road side Assistance service.
(4) Vehicle condition Report /Job record.
(5) Motor claim form 2 nos of IFFCO- TOKIO
(6) Xerox copy of surveyor report dt. 20/03/2022
(7) Tax invoice of Aditya Car automobile Pvt. Ltd.
(8) The corresponding letters dt. 17 June 2022 28.07.20222 and the postal
tracking Xerox copy.
-3-
(9) The repudiation letter 5- Aug 2022 Xerox copy.
(3) Having gone through the complainant its accompanied documents and on hearing the complainant the primafacie it seemed to be a genuine case hence admitted and notice to the OPs were served in response the OP No.2 appeared through his councel and filed his version.
(4) The rival contention of OP No. 2 averred in his version that the case is not maintainable against him, rather the complainant directed to pay amount of Rs3,05,400/- towards repairing expenditure of the damaged car along with detention charges @18% interest P.A. from the date of repairing till received of the vehicle and urged to dismissed the case.
O.P. No.1 and O.P No.3 has been given sufficient opportunity for filing of their version but failed and set experte on dt.16/01/2023 against the complainant.
(5) From the above facts and circumstances the evidence placed on the record this commission find and observe that there is an accident of the vehicle on dt 16/03/2022 as per the complainant and the evidence on the record. It is also true that that O.P No.2 being the caretaker of road side Assistance pick up the accident vehicle from the spot and shifted it to the service center which reflect on the vehicle condition report of dt 17.03.2022 . The engine no and the chassis no which is on the complaint petition Corborate with the registration certificate issued by the R.T.O Bhubaneswar . The insurance coverage of the vehicle is within the time i.e. 07/03/2022 to 06/03/2022 which reflect on the insurance policy certificate issued by the IFFCO TOKIO General insurance company Ltd.
It is pertinent to mention here that due to the policy holder of Honda road side assistance service the complainant immediately contact and intimated to OP No.2 for needful service it is the duty of the OP No.2 to fulfill all the criteria of F.I.R . before pickup the accident vehicle from the spot . as such the complainant is exempted from contractual liability . Non reporting to nearest policy station of the accident place the complainant cannot debar from his right to get the insured amount claim when the insurance policy is valid and within the coverage time from the date of renewal and with the knowledge of OP No.1.
It is settled principle of law that inform to the investigating agency i.e. the nearest Police station in case of theft or accident the investigating agency should move to action and detect the truth. But the insurance company cannot free from his liability. that the contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity where happening of the event is uncertain.
(6) In this case the OP. No 1 and 3 had knowledge about the accident informed by both the complainant and the OP No.2 after getting information OP No.1 appoint the surveyor for assessment of loss and after joint assessment with OP No.2 and the surveyor Op No.2 started repairing on the assent of the OP. No.1 .
-4-
It is settled principle of law that the policy condition becomes directory but not mandatory , more over it comes under harmonies construction . The terms and conditions of the insurance policy provide for an automatic renewal the precondition where of is only timely payment of premium.
Earning money by pocketing premium only cannot be the ultimate moto of the insurance policy . Just to send a letter of repudiation by saying there are some discrepancies or we cannot consider the claim is nothing but mischievous and foul play to harassing the consumer.
(7) From the above findings and observation this commission please to consider the genuine claim of the complainant in favour of the complainant. Due to the experte of the OP. No.1 and OP No. 3 the commission presumed the allegation made against OP No.1 and OP. No. 3 is admitted by them. The mischievous act and the foul play done by the OP. No. 1 and OP.No3 against the complainant comes under unfair trade practice as well as the restrictive trade practice which amounts to deficiency of service. Hence Order.
ORDER
It is directed that OP.No.1 and OP No.3 paid Rs3,05400/-@9% P.A from the date of incident till realization further Op No.1 and Op NO.3 are directed to pay the amount due by the OP No.2 towards detention charges of the vehicle a sum of Rs50,000/-@9% P.A till the delivery of the car to the complainant. Further OP. No.1 and O.P. No.3 directed to pay a sum of Rs30,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs5,000/- towards litigation expenses. Within one month from the date of order, failing which the entire amount will be paid by the OP. No.1 and OP No.3 @ 12% P.A from the date of incident till realization.
No award as to cost.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION TODAY i.e DATED 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY’2023.
Sd/- Sd/-
(J.MISHRA) (R.K.TRIPATHY)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT(I/C)
