Complaint Case No. CC/58/2019 | ( Date of Filing : 25 Sep 2019 ) |
| | 1. Kamal Haldar, | S/O Sri Sudhanshu Haldar, Resident of Vill.M.v.71, PO. Nalagunti, PS/Dist. Malakangiri - 764047. |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
Versus | 1. Bishnu Baidya, aged about 27 years, | Authorized aged of Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd. C/O Mahi Automotive,Main Road, Kalimela, Dist. Malkangiri - 764047. | 2. Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd. | Room No.4, First Floor, Siridi Sai Niwas, M.G. Road, Jeypore PO/PS. Jeypore, Dist.Koraput - 764001. | 3. Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd. | 1st &2nd Floor, HIG-22, BDA Colony, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar - 751013. | 4. Proprietor, M/S Mahi Automotive, | Main Road, Kalimeral, Dist. Malkangiri. - 764047. |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
Final Order / Judgement | - The fact of the case of complainant is that he insured his two wheeler vehicle vide Regd. No. OD-30-C-2221 with the O.P. No.1, 2 & 3 as per insistence of O.P. No.4 vide policy no. M5939066 with premium of Rs. 5,474/- and IDV of Rs. 465,000/- valid from 07.02.2019 to 06.02.2020. That due to an accident on 15.04.2019, the alleged vehicle got damaged and he informed the matter to the O.P. No.2 & 3 through the O.P. No.1 and submitted all the relevant documents for settlement of claim. It is alleged that on 17.04.2019 the O.P. No. 2 & 3 again asked for the documents for settlement of claim vide their letter no. REM/37932487 whereas the complainant again submitted all the relevant documents to the O.P. No. 1. But on 27.04.2019 the O.P. No.2 & 3 again asked for the relevant documents and complainant submitted again submitted all the relevant documents to the O.P. No.1 and enquired the same with the O.P. No.1, but did not get any satisfactory answer. Since no claim was settled, he file this case with a prayer to settle the insurance claim alongwith Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation.
- The notices sent to O.P. No. 1 & 4 returned back unserved on 21.03.2020 with a postal remark “addressee left without instruction”, as such we lost every opportunity to hear from them. However, the complainant submitted both the O.P. No. 1 & 4 are existing in the above address and running their business smoothly.
- The O.P. No. 2 & 3 appeared through their common Ld. Counsel and filed their written versions, wherein it is found that the many parts of contentions mentioned in the written version are something different to the present dispute and those are no way related to the present dispute, as such we feel, the O.P. No.2 & 3 have not properly verified the contentions of their written statement prior to filing before this Commission. However, O.P. 2 & 3 admitting the issuance of insurance policy against the alleged vehicle and the survey carried out by the Surveyor & Loss Assessor against the loss of damage. But denying their liabilities, they have contended that the surveyor asked for to submit the documents, but since complainant has not submitted the documents, they could not settled the insurance claim and they have sent reminders to that effect also and with contentions showing their no liabilities they prayed to dismiss the case.
- Parties have filed curtained documents in support of their submissions. Heard from the parties present. Perused the case record and material documents available therein.
- Complainant filed documents like
- Copy of insurance policy
- Copy of estimate report issued by O.P. No.4 for Rs. 32,898/-.
- Copy of R.C. Book
- Copy of sale certificate
- Copy of Votor I-Card
Whereas the O.P. No.2 & 3 has filed the documents like - Copy of reminder letters dated 17.04.2019, 27.04.2019 14.05.2019
- Copy of motor final survey report (blank one)
- In the present case in hand, it is not disputed that the complainant has insured his two wheeler vehicle with the O.P. No. 2 & 3 through the O.P. 1. It is also not disputed that on 15.04.2019 the vehicle met with an accident and the said fact was intimated to the O.Ps and accordingly, the appointing surveyor conducted an enquiry. The allegations of complainant he has submitted all the relevant documents to the O.P. No.1 for settlement of claim on many occasions but the O.P. No.2 & 3 did not settle the claim, whereas the contentions of O.P. No.2 & 3 is that since the complainant has not submitted the relevant documents, they could not settled the claim. Since the O.P. 1 did not appeared in this case, though he is actively existing in the above mentioned address, we lost every opportunity to hear from him that whether he has received the documents from the complainant or not ?As such we accepted the versions of complainant that he has submitted all the relevant documents to the O.P. No. 1, but the O.P. No. 1 without sending those documents to the O.P. 2 & 3, kept silent.Further the O.P.No. 2 & 3 has not raised any dispute stating that the O.P. No. 1, who is their agent, has not received any documents.Hence no contradiction was made out and the version of complainant became unchallenged and unrebbuted.In this connection, we have fortified with the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commissin in the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”
- Further it is ascertained from the record that the O.P. No. 2 & 3 has filed one blank survey report which does not contains anything, whereas they have admitted that the concerned surveyor has conducted the survey and assessed the loss. In this context, we would like to make it clear that blank survey report has no value in any manner and the same does not support the contentions of the O.Ps. Further no specific contradiction was made out by the O.Ps, as it is found that many parts of contentions mentioned in the written version filed by the O.P. No. 2 & 3 are something different to the present dispute and those are might have related to any other case of another person, as such we feel, the O.P. No.2 & 3 have not properly verified the contentions of their written version prior to filing before this Commission.
- Further, since the O.P. No.1 is totally absent throughout the proceeding, it cannot be disbelieved that the complainant has not handed over the relevant documents to the O.P. No.1 for settlement of claim. Hence the plea of O.P. No.2 & 3 regarding not providing the relevant documents by complainant, is having no value.
- As per the discussions made above, in our view, the complainant is entitled to receive the estimated amount from the Opp. Party. Further as per submissions of complainant and the material documents, it is observed that the complainant has tried his level best to get the genuine claims from the Opp. Party, but failed, for which he is compelled to file this case to seek proper reliefs. Hence this order.
ORDER The complaint petition is allowed in part. The Opp. Party No.2 & 3, being the insurer of the alleged vehicle, is herewith directed to refund the estimated amount of Rs. 32,898/- to the complainant alongwith Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment by the O.P. No.1 and also to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant. And all the direction should be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs. 32,898/- shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing of case i.e. 17.09.2019 till payment. Further the O.P. No .2 & 3 are at liberty to recover the amount paid by them towards compensation and costs, from the O.P. No. 1, if they desire to do so with due process. Pronounced in the open Court on this the 8th day of July, 2021. Issue free copy to the parties concerned. | |