Orissa

Nuapada

CC/16/2013

Bhagabana Chhatar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Baja Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

A.K.PATRA

22 Oct 2014

ORDER

 

                                                JUDGEMENT

Fact of the case in Brief:- The Complainant in this case is the father of the deceased/Loanee  Jogendra Chhatar, who financed the vehicle   Mahindra Max Factra bearing Regd. No-OR-26-2300 from State Bank of India(ADB) Branch, Nuapada and the vehicle got accident on dt.27.10.2008 near Padampur, Bargarh District  caused death of the driver- cum- Owner Jogendra Chhatar and the vehicle was damaged in the accident. The complainant has filed in his petition about immediate information of accident to the Insurer Bajaj Allianz Company Ltd, when the insurance policy is in force at the time of accident and it is also known the Branch Manager ADB, Nuapada(OP No.3) Nuapada Branch. Who is the O.P. No-3 in this case and  the deceased Jogendra Chhatar has hypothecated  the vehicle from the SBI ADB, Nuapada Branch having a outstanding dues against him. The deceased driver- cum- owner by himself drive the vehicle maintain his family from this source of income, After accident of the said vehicle the matter is reported to the Padampur Police Station  vide P.S. Case No.102 dated 28.10.2008 Corresponding  to G.R. Case No. 352/2008 SDJM Padampur,District Bargarh. As per the petition the matter is immediately informed the M.V.I, Bargarh  and the Insurer Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company Ltd, at the same time it is well known to SBI,(ADB) Nuapada. But since a long time no action has taken by O.P. No-3 SBI(ADB) Nuapada for the insurance claims. Even no claim form was issued by the OPs till date. 

 

After the accident the complainant repaired the damaged vehicle of Bomby Garage , Sambalpur by spending 1,79,005 by taking help from friend and relatives      .After the incident the complainant aggrieved upon the non – response of the opposite parties issued notice the present OPs on dated 13.10.2013 hearing his Advocate.

 

From the side of opposite parties O.P. No-1 and 2 and 3 O.P No-1 appeared in those case but absent at the time of hearing and argument even not filed any version of this case and O.P. No-3 SBI(ADB)has appeared and filled his version through his Advocate S.R. Dandsena, stating that, the matter of accident not been informed to the O.P. No-3 and the owner/loanee himself insured the hypothecated vehicle from O.P No-1 and 2. The claim was made directly without assistance of O.P. No-3 SBI Nuapada, the complaint has no locus standi to filed this case against O.P. No-3 for any claim or any deficiency in service occurs. The OP No-3 is no way responsible for any claim and it is barred by limitation. The complaint or alleging against O.P. No-3 is frivolous and vexatious as liable to be dropped.

 

After hearing and argument by O.P. No-3 and the complains advocate, the Hon’ble Forum has decided that the O.P. No. 1 and 2 appeared by filing on by VAKALATNAMA without filing their version even not appeared at the time of hearing and argument though the insurance policy is inforce during the time of accident of the said vehicle. So they are solemnly responsible to settle the insurance claim of the compliant of the complainant has not taken any claim from the O.P. No-1 and 2.It the claim amount is not paid till today, pay the amount of claim to O.P No-3 SBI(ADB) Nuapada for realization  of hypothecated loan amount which was outstanding against the deceased owner of the vehicle. The cause of action arose on 27.10.2008 and the case filed on 25.04.2013 even given pleader notice on 13.10.2012. So it is barred by limitation and the complainant has not filed any original bill for repair of the vehicle at Bomby Garage , Sambalpur and ORISSA Motors, Aintapali Sambalpur  rather he has submitted only quotation of that Garage.

ORDER

Perused the records and the Hon’ble Forum has come to finding that, the complainant has not mentioned about the payment of insurance claims and filed this case in belated stage, so it is barred by limitation, though the insurance is inforce at the time of accident even he has not filed any reliable document for his repair of vehicle or surveyor report etc. It is totally negligent of the complaint.

          Hence this case is dismissed without any cost due to barred by limitation.

          Judgement pronounced in the open court of District Consumer Disputes Redressal  Forum, Nuapada this is the 22^nd  day of October 2014