ORDER BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT- MR. P.K. PADHI:

                                                                                           JUDGMENT

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.35 of C.P. Act, 2019 seeking following reliefs;

            “Direct the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to settle the claim amount along with other expenses and charges of Rs.8,88,000/-”.

            The brief fact of the case is that, the complainant is the owner of the vehicle (Truck) bearing Regd. No.OD-05-AM-0126. The vehicle was insured before opposite parties No.1 & 2. On 06.10.2019 the vehicle faced road accident while carrying iron ore from Koida to Paradeep. After accident the insurance company (O.P. No.1 & 2) informed about the accident on same day by the complainant. The next day i.e. on 07.10.2019 the official of insurance company visited the spot and took several photograph of damage truck and they suggested the complainant to drag the truck by Tocher to garage for repair/rebuilt the damage parts. The official of the insurance company visited the garage and inspected the truck so also took several photographs of the same along with damage parts and also received the expenditure bill from the garage on 18.10.2019. But it is strange enough till today after several personal requests and written request the insurance company did not like to settle the legitimate claim of the complainant.  

            Opposite parties No.1 & 2 filed their written version stating as under;

            Opposite parties have issued a policy proposal in respect of vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-05-Am-0126 in favour of the complainant covering his vehicle which was valid from 22.9.2019 to 21.9.2020 midnight and claim if any is payable subject to certain terms and conditions of the insurance policy. During subsistence of the said policy claim was lodged before the insurance company alleging there in that on 06.10.2019 which the vehicle was proceeding loaded with iron ore met with an accident as a front coming truck dashed with the vehicle of the complainant. The vehicle of the complainant sustained damages due to the said accident. After receipt of the claim intimation the opposite parties had deputed the IRDA surveyor for survey of the vehicle as well as for assessment of liability of the insurance company. After spot survey, the vehicle was shifted by the applicant to a garage, Jajpur Road for repair of the vehicle, who after completion of repair work submitted his assessment as Rs.1,55,000/-. While processing the claim of the complainant the opposite parties deputed one investigator to investigate into the matter as the alleged accident resulted in death of the driver of the other vehicle as well as injury of the helper of the said vehicle. While inquiring into the matter of accident, it was ascertained by the investigator that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with CHOLA M/S GIC covering the risk of the vehicle from 22.9.2018 to 21.9.2019 and the said policy was further renewed for the period 22.9.2019 to 21.9.2020. As per the condition of the policy Condition No.9 “if at the time of occurrence of one event that give rise to any claim under policy, there is in existence of any other insurance covering the same loss damage or liability, the company shall not be liable to pay or contribute more than its ratable proportion of any compensation cost or expenses”. The vehicle of the complainant was insured with another insurance company covering the date of the alleged accident, as such the claim application filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.   

            Facts of case are not disputed regarding accident, claim and maintainability etc. The only dispute was that the complainant was having two policies i.e. another policy with CHOLA M/S GIC, which is not correct and finally admitted by opposite parties fairly.

            The opposite parties being the insurer should have taken timely step to settle the dispute for delaying the settlement no doubt the complainant has suffered a lot in paying the garage expenses, EMI, treatment of driver and helper which cannot be compensated in terms of money. At the same time we also consider the case of opposite parties. We have satisfied that there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, opposite parties No.1 & 2 shall pay the amount as per surveyor report with 10% compound interest from the date of accident to till the date of payment and we also award cost of Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of business for three months and Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation. With the aforesaid observation and direction the consumer complaint is disposed of.