Adv. For the Complainant: - Sri Kamal Loan Mishra and Other
Adv. For O.P :- Sri Deepak Ranjan Sathpathy
Date of filing of the Case :- 09.12.2020
Date of Order :- 29.09.2022
JUDGMENT
Facts of the Case in nutshell :-
1 The complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle namely Hyundai creta bearing Regd. No. CG-04- MN 9081 which was covered with a private car insurance 3 year Package policy bearing no 346000/31/2019 6023 which was valid from 11.02.2019 to 10.02.2022. The same vehicle was met an accident on dt. 28.06.2019 at about 11.00 P.M on the Sonepur-Bolangir P.W.D road near Essar petrol pump village Randa, while returning from Sonepur to Bolangir. The fact of accident was reported in puintala Police Station Vide SD entry No.11 dt.29.06.2019. Due to the aforesaid accident the vehicle got severely damaged so the matter was intimated to the Divisional Manager of the Oriental
-2-
Insurance Company Ltd. Bolangir. Vide motor claim intimated letter, according to claim was registered vide claim, no.340012/31/2020/030407.
2. After receiving the complain the insurance company appointed the surveyor namely Sri Sunil Banchhor for loss assessor . During as per his assessment the repair work was done at Raipur in M/s Shankara Hyundai , Raipur at a cost of Rs.5,75,552/- and Rs.14,680/- towards surveyors fee total a sum ofRs.5,90,432/- paid by the complainant and accordingly claim was made on dt.22.02.2020 on dt.07.03.2020 the insurance company transfer an amount of Rs.5,26,565/- which was credited in the account of the complainant instead of Rs.5,90,432/- Since the policy issued was a Zero depreciation policy the complainant claim the differential amount of Rs.63,867/- from the Insurance Company. The complainant has repeatedly made several correspondence regarding settlement of the claim but the insurance company refused to pay the differential amount hence this case.
To substantiating his case has relied upon the following documents.
1. Registration Certificate particulars of vehicle No.CG-04-MN-9081.
2. Insurance Policy Bearing No. 346000/31/2019/6023 (two Papers)
3. Extract of Station diary of Puintala Police Station dt.29.06.2019..
4. Motor Claim intimation Letter by the Complainant.
5. Invoice summon of M/S Shankara Hyundai, Raipur along with money receipt dt.11,12,2019 showing payment of Rs. 5,75,752/- (Six Papers)
6. Survey Bill of Sunil Banchhor Showing payment of Rs.14,680/- (Two papers)
7. Letters send to Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. also Regional Manager Bhubaneswar o dt. 13.03.2020.
8. Reminder letter vide email dt 1105.2020.
9. Reminder letter to Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company , Bolangir and Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance , Bhubaneswar dt.26.05.2020 for salvage matter.
Having gone through the complainant it’s accompanied documents is found that there is a primafacie case against the OPs seems to be found genuine , hence admitted the case issue notice to the OPS served and in response the OPs appeared through his counsel and filed written version.
-3-
3. The rival contention as per their version. It is denied almost of the contents to counter the claim the OP. stated that the bill is not correct and inflated one, that a sum Rs 5,90,432/- spend by the complainant towards repairing charges certain items have not been allowed by the final surveyor as damage to those parts are not consistent with reported nature of accident as a result of which the claim has been inflated rather the OP transfer an amount of Rs.5,26,565/- to the account of the complainant deducting firstly Rs.18,000/- towards salvage secondly a sum of Rs 2000/- towards policy excess. Thirdly there are some consumable items used in the vehicle such as Mobil, gear oil, rubber, nut bolts etc. which are not covered under the policy, so payment for these items does not arise. The amount has been released in terms of garage settlement on repair loss basis. The complainant claim of further payment of Rs 63,867/- is arbitrary and excessive . The cheque has been paid to the complainant which he received as full and final settlement of claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, neither he is entitled to pay the differential amount. Interest over the same , cost of mental agony or litigation expencesses . The complainant petition of the complainant be dismissed with cost.
4 Heard both the parties and having gone through the case and after perusal of the documentary evidence adduced by both the parties . That the vehicle in dispute made an accident where the insurance was valid and cover the accidental claim . The discharge voucher filed by the Op shows that there is settlement of claim between both the parties where the complainant received an amount of Rs 5,26,565/- where the warding is as follows.
‘’I hereby voluntarily give discharge receipt to the company in full and final settlement of all my claims present or future arising directly / indirectly in respect of the said loss /accident. I hereby also subrogate all my rights and remedies to the company in respect of the above loss/damage’’ and put signature on it. As such after receiving of the compensation amount the liberty of the complainant seizes to file a complaint case. It is also the golden principle of resjudicata that “Issues of facts once finally determined or settle will however stare at the parties and bind them on account of earlier settlement or for any other good reason where equitable principles of estoppels are attracted.
There is no whispering about the salvage which the complainant has to deposit except the letter dated 26.05.2020 after settlement and the relief sought by the complainant is baseless after acknowledgement on the discharge voucher. As such according to summary assessment given by the surveyor after deduction and addition comes to Rs 5,11,885/- including the salvage cost and policy excess cost but the Insurance company paid to the complainant Rs.5,26,565/- including the surveyor fees paid by the complainant.
5 On our further Observation of the detail of the case in hand it is observed that the Oriental insurance company Ltd. settle the claim full and final and no option leave for the complainant for another litigation”. “ It is settled principle in law that the surveyor report
-4-
should be basis in computing loss unless being biased’’. In our view there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs towards the complainant. It is Just a process of abuse the time of the Commission.
HENCE ORDER
In view of the facts and circumstance as narrated above the Opposite Party has not commit any error and deficiency of service towards the complainant. Accordingly the case is dismissed without any cost.
Accordingly the case is disposed off.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION TO-DAY 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER’2022.
Sd/- Sd/-
(J.MISHRA) (R.K.TRIPATHY)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT(I/C)
