Orissa

Jajapur

CC/82/2016

Smt.Binapani Tripathy - Complainant(s)

Versus

B.M.National Insurance Co.Ltd,Jajpur Road Branch. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Feb 2018

ORDER

   IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                     

                                              Dated the 26th day of February ,2018.

                                                 C.C.Case No.82 of 2016

Smt  Binapani Tripathy ,  W/O Late Biranchi Narayan Mishra

C/O Ghanashyam Sethi 

At/P.O. Durga Bazar  

Dist..Dhenkanal  .

Present Address

Banapani Tripathy,303 mind space

Appointment ,Veerana Pallia ,near Indian petrol Bank

Banglore .  

                                                                                                                            …....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1.B.M. National Insurance Co.Ltd, Jajpur Road Branch ,At/P.O. Jajpur

  Dt.Jajpur .

2.D.M. National Insurance Co.Ltd, Anugul Divisional Office,

At.Hanuman Bazar,Anugul.

                                                                                                                      ……………..Opp.Parties.

              For the Complainant:                             Self

Counsel for the Opp.Parties : .                            Sri A. Ku. Das, Advocate.               .                                                                        

                                                                                                Date of order:  26. 02. 2018.

SHRI  PITABAS  MOHANTY ,  MEMBER  .

Deficiency in insurance service is the grievance of the petitioner .

            Very briefly, the case of the complainant is that the  complainant is the wife of deceased Biranchi Mishra  who had purchased one diesel Ambasador Car bearing Regd. No.0R-02-M-2748, Engine No.6E PEY-024295 with chasis No.AKY-80807171. The said vehicle was duly insured under M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd and the insurance was valid from 28.03.2004 to 27.03.2005 .The car in question was stolen  for which the deceased had lodged FIR on 04.11.2004 before the Dharmasala police station,Jajpur .The case was registered under P.S Case No.270/2004 corresponding GR Case  No.1104/2004. The Insurance Co. deputed one surveyor for investigation of such lost car of the deceased . Despite survey and submission of all relevant documents , the O.P did not turn up for settlement of the claim though there was valid insurance in respect of  the stolen vehicle. It is further stated that the complainant had approached before the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.17094/2013 challenging the inaction of the Opp.parties  relating non settlement of the claim after death of her husband  and  the Hon’ble High court was pleased to direct the Insurance Co. for full and final settlement of the claim vide order dt.19.06.2014 and in perusance of the said order  the Insurance company released an amount of 1,74,500/- in favour of the complainant  towards full and final settlement of her claim. The complainant received the amount on protest. It is further alleged that after lapse of 11 years i.e from 04.11.2004  till March,2015, the Insurance company has settled the claim to the tune of Rs.1,74,500/- without including any interest for 11 years. On receipt of the amount  of Rs.1,74,500/- settled by the Insurance company  the complainant sent a protest letter on 23.3.2015 and requested to settle the interest component for 11 years which amounting to Rs.2.61 lakh. Delay in settlement of claim amounts to deficiency in service and the O.Ps are liable to pay interest. The complainant due to non-settlement of the interest over the settled amount for a period of 11 years preferred W.P(C) No.16390/2015 before the Hon’ble High Court seeking direction to the O.Ps to pay interest over the  settled amount for the period from 04.11.2004 to march-2015 . The Hon’ble High court was pleased to disallow the above writ petition vide its order dt.22.09.2015 without issuing notice to the O.Ps  .Further the complainant also approached the insurance ombudsman for early settlement of her claim, but the insurance Ombudsman in its letter dt. 11.12.2015 intimated the complainant that the complaint of the complainant does not come within the scope of the RPG Rule . Further the complainant knocked the door of Hon’ble DCDFR,Forum,Dhenkanal but the DCDRF,Dhenkanal disposed of the dispute with territorial jurisdiction ground with the liberty to the complainant file the complainant before proper forum under law  .  Hence the complinant files this  present petition availing the remedy under section 3 of the C.P.Act. the complainant has sustained loss amounting to Rs.2.61 lakhs towards interest over the settled amount of Rs.1,74,500/- .Despite several approaches and reminder letters, the O.ps did not pay any heed to the grievance of the complainant for which the complainant has come  before this Forum seeking for a direction to the O.Ps to pay the interest of Rs.2,61,000/- over the settled amount. Besides the complainant claims other relief.

            On the other hand the O.Ps have appeared  through their learned advocate and filed the written version stating that there is absolutely no cause of action as made against the O.Ps. The case is liable to be dismissed due to  non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties.

            It is further stated that admittedly this O.Ps  has insured the alleged Ambassador Car of the complainant during the period from 28.03.04 to 27.03.05. Due to alleged theft of the said car the complainant had approached Hon’ble High Court in W.P(C) No.17094/13 and the Hon’ble Court in its order dt.19.06.14  has directed this O.Ps , if possible release the amount within a period of four months from the date of receipt the  copy of   this order. The O.Ps soon after getting the copy of the order has sanctioned a sum of Rs.1,74,500/- towards loss and intimated the insured accordingly . The complainant has also received the said amount . The allegation are false and fabricated and meant for mis leading the Fora. It is submitted that the complainant has also approached the High court,insurance Ombudsman and also filed a consumer complaint before the DCDRF, Dhenkanal  vide C.C.No.32/16 and as per order dt.07.10.16  this complainant has been filed before this Fora  the contents of this order is self explanatory.

             That filing of this complaint after lapse of a period of long 11 years  ( i.e on 14.12.16) is absolutely barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed as per the provisions of law. This O.P being an Insurance company is governed by the terms and conditions as laid down by the Insurance  Regulatory Authority and accordingly deal with each and every matter. Every possible steps  was taken by this O.P in dealing with this case. So the question of deficit of service in any manner will never arise.

            The complainant has narrated some fabricated things in the entire body of the application which deserves   no consideration. The O.P  strictly denies all these aspects .

            There is no deficit of service in any manner  and the case as made against this O.P is liable to be dismissed as per the provisions of law. Hence it is prayed by the O.P  that  the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed with proper cost.

On the date of hearing we heard the arguments from the learned advocate  of the O.Ps.

            After perusal  of the record and documents in details we observed that

1. It is undisputed fact that the said vehicle was insured with O.P No.1 valid from 28.03.04 to 23.03.05

2. It is also undisputed fact that the alleged vehicle was stolen by some unknown culprits in the year 2004 during subsistence of the policy

3.That immediately after the theft of the vehicle , the complainant  lodged the claim before O.Ps but due to delay of settlement  the claim ,  the petitioner approached  the Hon’ble High Court vide W.P.(C)  no. 17094/2013 .Thereafter the Hon’ble  High  court disposed the writ petion vide order dt.19.6.14 as per the following observations.

“Considering the contention raised by the learned  counsel for the petitioner without expressing any opinion on merits of the case , if the petitioner’s is entiled to get benefit pursuance  to the policy in question the O.P  is directed to took well to consider the same and pass appropriate order  and if possible released the amount within  the period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order .”

4. In this contest the O.Ps taking the  plea that  soon after getting the order copy  of the Hon’ble High court they have  sanctioned  Rs.1,75,500/-  towards loss  and intimated the insured accordingly. “

5. That  regarding the limitation point as raised by the O.Ps  . In the written version it is our considered view that  the  claim of the above vehicle settled by the O.Ps  after receipt of  order of Hon’ble Higth court  soon after the complainant  filed the dispute before the DCDRF, Dhenkanal regarding the interest but due to territorial jurisdiction point the learned  Dist forum vide order dt 07.10.16 disposed the complaint  with liberty to the complainant to file  the dispute in proper court of law .Thereafter the complainant  filed the present dispute on 14.12.16 before this Fora . Hence the dispute is within the period of limitation as per U/S 24(A) of  C.P.Act . More over limitation is a technical point as per observation of State Commission  reported in 2004-11-CLD-568 (M.P)

6. After verification of  the record we observed that  after theft of the alleged vehicle the petitioner lodged the FIR on 4.11.04 before Dharmasala police station , jajpur .  The case was registered vide P.S. case No. 270/2004   corresponding to GR case No.1104/04 . After a long gap i.e  near about 11 years the O.P  settled the Insurance claim soon  after the complainant  knocked the door of the Hon’ble High court . Hence it is our consider view that  the O.Ps have committed gross negligence and patient deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice  in  settlement of the above insurance claim of the above vehicle and   took time nearly about 11 years .

Hence this order

            The O.Ps are directed to pay 9% interest  on the settled  amount of Rs.1,74,500/- from the  date of submission of Insurance claim  till its realization ,failing which the complainant is at liberty to take steps as per law for realization of the amount . No cost .

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 26th day of February,2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.