OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANGUL
PRESENT:- SRI DURGA CHARAN MISHRA.
PRESIDENT
A N D
Smt.Sunanda Mallick &Sri K.K.Mohanty,
MEMBER .
Consumer Complaint No. 06 of 2014
Date of Filling : - 15.01.2014.
Date of Order :- 27.08.2019.
Sri Ajit Kumar Swain ,S/O.Sri Ashok Swain,At-
Rajkishorepada,Hemsurapada,P.O/P.S/Dist.Angul.
____________________________________________Complainant.
Vrs.
- Branch Manager ,National Insruance Company Ltd,
Dhenkanal Branch Office,At- Kunjakanta,South
Madhuban, P.O/P.S/Dist.-Dhenkanal
- Divisional Manager ,National Insruance Company Ltd,
Angul Division Office,At- Hanuman Bazar,N.H.55,
P.O/P.S/Dist.-Angul
- TATA MOTORS Finance Ltd,Represented through its
Branch Manager,AngulBranch,Angul,P.O/P.S/Dist.Angul.
4. TATA MOTORS Finance Ltd,Acompany incorporated
under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act,1956,
having itsoffice at Building A,2nd Floor,Lodha 1,Think
Techno Campus Off,Pokharam Road,2,Thane(West),400607.
____________________________________________Opp. parties.
For the complainant :- Sri D.K.Pani & associates(Advs.).
For the opp.party Nos.1 & 2 :- Sri J.N.Mishra & associates(Advs.).
For the opp.party Nos.3 & 4 :- Sri K.P.Sahu & associates(Advs.).
: J U D G E M E N T :
Smt.S.Mallick, Member.
The complainant has filed this case with prayer to direct the opp.party No.1 & 2 to pay Rs. 2,50,401.00 along with interest @24% per annum towards his insurance claim settlement for accidental damage of his Tata Indica Car bearing Regd. No. OR-19H- 5977.
2. The short case of the complainant is that, he is the owner of Tata Indica car bearing Regd. NBo. OR-19-H-5977. This insurance policy was valid from 27.11.2010 to 26.11.2011 midnight bearing policy No.163801/31/10/6300003131. Unfortunately the above vehicle of the complainant overturned and got completely damaged .The incident was reported to police station, Cuttack vide F.I.R No. 140(8) dtd. 07.08.2011 and investigated into the case. That, as the incident took place within the valid period of the insurance, the complainant submitted the claim application before the opp.parties for settlement .The Opp.parties deputed the surveyor who surveyed the vehicle on different occasions. After getting the claim application, the opp.parties demanded the valid driving license (PSV badge), which the complainant complied but in vain. The complainant pleaded that he sustained heavy loss and suffered mental agony for not getting the insurance claim in time. Therefore he filed the present case.
3. The opp.party Nos.1 & 2 and opp.party Nos. 3 & 4 entered appearance and submitted their separate written version. All the opp.parties pleaded that the case is not maintainable nor there is any cause of action. It is the case of the opp.party Nos.1 & 2 (Insurance Company ) that after receiving information from the complainant, they engaged the surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs. 1,35,000.00 and accordingly the insurance company after getting the final surveyor report and re-inspection report assessed the claim at Rs. 1,05,000.00 . It is stated that the insurance company was bound to close the claim as no valid driving license was produced before them in time. They stated that they cannot disobey the rules and regulations and conditions of the policy. Accordingly, Insurance company along with opp.party Nos.3 & 4 have prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the following issues are settled for determination.
Issues:-
- Whether the case is maintainable and there is any cause of action to file the case or not ?
- Whether the complainant is a consumer under the opp.parties within the meaning of C.P Act, 1986 ?
- Whether the opp.parties have committed any deficiency in service by closing the insurance claim of the complainant and whether the report of the surveyor engaged for assessing the claim of the complainant is genuine and acceptable ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to reliefs claimed ?
: F I N D I N G S :
Issue No.:(i) & (ii):-The complainant has insured his vehicle under the opp.parties (insurance company ) and during the valid insurance period the vehicle met with an accident and became completely damaged. So there is cause of action and the case is maintainable. As the complainant had insured the vehicle by paying the due premium there is a consumer and service provider relationship between them within the meaning of C.P.Act, 1986.
Issue No.(iii):- The opp.party No.1 & 2 admitted the incident dt.7.8.2011 regarding the damage of the complainant’s insured vehicle which is within the valid period of the insurance policy .It is stated that the insurance company is to work within the rules and regulations and the conditions of insurance policy and they cannot wait for a long time to settle the claim of the insured as the valid D.L of P.S.V badge was not submitted by him in time but complainant has submitted the above documents ,for which the process could have been reopened. However , the surveyor engaged by the insurance company had assessed at Rs. 1,35,000.00 by deducting the salvage value and policy excess with a remark that :-
“the captioned vehicle may be Re-inspected after completion of repairing works in all respect with proper scrutiny of all the salvages and also that fitted new”. (6.3,Page-11).
The insurance company Re-inspected the vehicle on 14.11.2011.It reveals from the re-inspection report that, some parts of the vehicle wore not fitted and the salvages of some parts are not shown to the surveyor .However, after getting the final survey report and Re-inspection report the insurance company has assessed Rs. 1,05,000.00 towards the net loss as some bills are not submitted before the opp.parties, after deducting the policy excess, salvage and depreciation of some parts as per the conditions of the policy. The assessment is made by the opp.party (insurance company ) for Rs.1,05,000/-after adjustment of salvage value and policy excess towards full and final settlement of the claim. There is no reason as to why, the aforesaid reports of the surveyors have to be thrown on the ground.
We have already observed that there is no reasons to discard the aforesaid reports of two surveyors. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we observe that natural justice should be rendered to the complainant as because he had submitted his L.M.V driving license .As the above mentioned Tata Indica car comes under l.M.V category , there is no need to submit special PSV badge, driving license. Both the parties have filed written argument with number of citations. Out of which the most suitable and important one is :- In{ (2017) 68 OCR (SC)-292, Mukund Dewangene Vrs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd }, the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that-
“ A driver having a license to drive ‘Light Motor Vehicle” and is driving a “transport vehicle” of that class is not required to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle and he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect”.
Issue No.(iv):- In view of the aforesaid discussion the petitioner is entitled to get Rs. 1,05,000.00 only towards the insured damaged vehicle (Tata Indica Car) bearing Regd. No. OR-19H-5977 from the opp.party No.1 & 2.
- Hence the order :-
: O R D E R :
The C.C Case is disposed of on contest against the opp.party Nos.1 &2.
The opp.party Nos.1 &2 are directed to pay Rs.1,05,000.00 only to the complainant with 5% yearly compoundable interest from the date of filing of this case i.e from 15.01.2014 and Rs. 5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand) towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 45 days of getting this order. In case of any deviation of this order the awarded amount will carry 12% early compoundable interest from 46th day of this order besides other penalty .
Order delivered in the open forum today the 27th August, 2019 with hand and seal of this Forum.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me Sd/-
(Sri D. C. Mishra)
Sd/- President.
( Smt.S.Mallick)
Member. Sd/-
(Sri K.K.Mohanty),
Member.
