DATE OF DISPOSAL: 29.01.2024

PER:   SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT

The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party (in short the O.P.) and for redressal of his  grievance before this Commission.

2. The complainant purchased one Maruti Omni Ambulance on bank finance being financed by Canara Bank Chatrapur at the time of purchase. The Maruti Insurance Broking Private Limited (O.P.No.3) persuaded to insure the vehicle with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.ltd (O.P.No.1 & 2) and accordingly the same was done bearing policy No.  OG-16-2403-1811-00000120, policy type: Package policy (Ambulance) issued dated 05.02.2016 valid up to 04.02.2017, vehicle No: OD-33-G-0981. On the night of 19.06.2016 the said vehicle carrying 5 persons along with a “infant” (born child) while travelling from Berhampur Medical College Hospital to Cuttack Medical college Hosp[ital for treatment on the way near Khallikote Ghat (under Khallikote police station area) said vehicle met with an accident, being dashed with a truck bearing No. RNL-01A-7622 as a result of which one Parsuram Reddy and the born child died, causing severe damaged to said ambulance vehicle. Instead of making payment the O.Ps repudiated the claim of the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay insurance claim amount of Rs.1,51,510/- with 18% interest, compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.10,000/- in the best interest of justice.

3. Admitting the case, the Dist. Commission issued notice to the opposite parties.

4. The O.P.No.1 & 2 filed written version/written argument through their advocate. It is stated that Rakesh Kumar Patra has taken “Commercial vehicle class D” policy from this insurance company vide policy No. OG-16-2403-1811-00000120 issued from 05.02.2016 to 04.02.2016 subject to terms, conditions, limitation and liabilities of the policy. As per the police record corresponding to GR No. 307 of 2016 Khallikote Police station, Ganjam on the date of accident i.e. 20.06.2016 in the vehicle bearing No. OD-33-G-0981 total 7 persons including driver were processing, whereas RTO Bhubaneswar-II the authorized seating capacity of the said vehicle to 05.  Therefore, it is clear that the said vehicle was deliberately subjected to overload beyond its capacity, which is gross negligence by the insured and did not take reasonable care and directly contributed to the loss. Hence as the owner/insured has violated the norms of the motor vehicle act and terms and conditions of the insurance policy, this O.P. is not liable to compensate such huge amount to the complainant as there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. The Driving License bearing No. OR.0719980138760 which has been issued by the Transport Department, RTO, Ganjam in favour of the driver Amulya Sahoo who was driving the vehicle bearing regd. No. OD.33.G.0981, the said DL was valid from 23.06.2010 to 17.06.2019 for transport vehicle but after verification from concerned RTO, it was found that the license was renewed from 20.04.2013 to 19.04.2016 and thereafter no renewal was made till the date of alleged accident. Further renewal was made on 20.06.2016 i.e. after the date and time of the alleged accident. It reveals that the vehicle was being driver without a valid and effective deriving license from 20.04.2016 to date of accident and to influence the admissibility of the claim, same was renewed on alleged date of accident. Because no RTA office will open before the official timing, it is clear that only to cover the alleged accident the driver of the vehicle smartly renewed the driving   license after the alleged time of accident. Therefore it is clear that there was clear violation of the driver clause stated on face of “Insurance policy” as the last renewal of transport endorsement was up to 19.04.2016 and there was no subsequent renewal until the accident occurred. The O.P. has appointed an IRDA license surveyor promptly upon receipt of the claim intimation and the surveyor has visited the spot of accident and has made as assessment of loss to the tune of Rs.50,577/- subject to terms and condition of the policy. Under no circumstances the liability of the O.P. shall exceed the assessment done by the surveyor. Even after repeated reminders the complainant did not cooperate with insurance company for submission of documents in order to take necessary steps for processing of his claim. Hence the complainant violated the terms and condition of the policy as such the O.P. Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation on the sole ground itself. Hence the O.P.No.1 & 2 prayed to dismiss the case.

5. The O.P.No.3 filed written version through his advocate. It is stated that the present complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed as such against the answering O.P. The complainant has impleaded the answering O.P. without any reason, cause of action or justification. The complainant has miserably failed to disclose any specific cause of action against this O.P. in the complaint. The present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties. The answering O.P. is neither necessary nor proforma party to the instant complaint. Hence, the name of this O.P. is liable to be deleted from the array of parties on account of want of cause of action. The answering O.P. herein i.e. Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd. is merely an insurance broking entity licensed by “The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India” (IRDAI). As a facilitator, the role of this O.P. is to apprise the customers about the features and benefits of motor insurance products offered by various Insurance Companies. After this facilitation, the customers buy insurance as per their own will and violation and pays insurance premium which goes to the concerned insurance company only. In lieu of the premium received, the insurance company insures the vehicle and issued insurance policy to the customers subject to their own terms and conditions/IRDAI guidelines. In case of any claim on insurance, the insurance companies are ultimately accountable to the insured for claim settlement. Here it would not be out of place of mention that the insurance companies are the ultimate risk carriers of the insured vehicle. In the instant case O.P.No.1 & 2 i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. ltd. Qua the insurer of the vehicle of the complainant, repudiated the claim, hence they are solely liable to the complainant for the alleged claim, if lawfully found due. It is therefore pleaded that the answering O.P. qua facilitator of insurance has no role to play in the instant complaint and name of this O.P. is liable to be deleted from the array of parties on this ground alone.

6. On the date of hearing the advocate for Opposite Parties No. 1, 2 & 3 are present.  On perusal of the case record it is found that, the complainant is consistently remain absent in the Commission since 02.05.2018 and in any point of time the complainant has taken any steps and today also absent on repeated call. So we feel that the complainant is not interested to proceed with his case. The complainant failed to perform his obligatory duty to remain present at the time of hearing as required under Rule 4 sub-Rule 8 of Consumer Protection Rules, 1987.

In the result, we dismissed the complaint for default under Rule-4 Sub-Rule 8 of C.P. Rules 1987.

This case is disposed of accordingly.

      The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

            The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 29.01.2024