MR. PRABODHA KUMAR DASH, PRESIDENT:-
The C.C Case No. 19/2019 taken up today for order. This case is pending since 15/03/2019,which is against the very purpose of C.P.Act,2019, where legislature enacted for speedy disposal of dispute in time bound manner. We found this case posted on several occasion 50 times as reveals from record. The Complainant will be affected and prejudiced unless this case disposed of on priority basis. We are gone through the averments in complaint petition so also contention of Ops on its written version and carefully examined the materials, documents exhibited by both the parties.
Brief Fact:-
The Complainant Chandan Mohanty, for earning his livelihood being a unemployed youth purchased a truck by availing finance from HDFC Bank Ltd. And the same vehicle was insured under HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., Head office in Mumbai & regional office at OSL Tower, 1st Floor, Badambadi, Cuttack as in cause title OpNo.1 & 2, the insurer. When the policy was in force, the vehicle faced an accident on dt. 14.06.2018, as a result sustained major damages without casualties. Accordingly, the Complainant informed the facts to local police & there was a station diary to local police & there was a station diary entry No.3 dt. 15/06/2018. This incident was informed to Op No.1 & 2 and accordingly the insurer deputed surveyor for assessment of damage, then after the vehicle was sent for repair to Podar Modotors, Manguli chhak, the authorized service center for concerned vehicle. The insurer & complainant amicably finished all relevant paper works. Accordingly the claimant for realization of damage submitted necessary documents as required for claim. Authorized service Centre provided expenditure incurred to the extent of Rs. 3,79,717/-. The Claimant/Complainant filed claimed application before insurer Op no.1 & 2, but the Op No.1 &2 did not settled the amount so also repudiated claim of complainant because of the DL of Driver was not valid on date of accident. To remove such doubt complainant submitted relevant documents in support of his claim but the Op No.1 & 2 intentionally, illegally, arbitrarily, against the principle of law and natural justice repudiated legal claims of the complaint. Being aggrieved by such illegal action of Op No.1 & 2 Complainant compelled to appear before this Commission & prayed for justice. Unless this Commission exercise its jurisdiction the Complainant will suffer irreparable loss which can’t be compensated in any manner.
Further prayed that having no alternative remedy available filed this C.C.Case for timely redressal of the same.
Points to be Determined:-
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer within the perview of C.P.Act, 2019?
- Whether the C.C.Case has been filed within the prescribed limitation period?
- Whether the Op No.1 &2 repudiated the claim of the Complainant is committed deficiency in service?
- Whether the claim of the Complainant/ Claimant rightfully claimed Rs. 3,79,717/- entitle to such amount or any other reliefs?
- Whether the surveyor assessed the damaged vehicle is the final authority or not?
Issue No.1:-
As per the averments made by the Complainant, he purchased the vehicle on question in order to earn his livelihood by availing finance from H.D.F.C Bank, Op No.1 &2 within the perview of C.P.Act, 2019 & Sec2(7).
Issue No.2:-
The Vehicle met with an accident on dt. 14/06/2018. The complaint was filed on dt. 15.03.2019, which was well within the prescribed limitation period as per C.P.Act,2019.
Issue No.3:-
Repudiation of Insurance claim for damage sustained by Complainant due to accident of his vehicle which was insured under the Op No.1 &2 as insurer is deficiency in service. The Insurance Company had undertaken the liability to identify the insured & the claim should have been settled at last within the period of 4 months from the date of accident. It is true that, the claims were to be investigated by the surveyor but the claim should have been settled within that period. Intentional delay in settlement of claim is a deficiency in service as per reported decision of Honbl’e SCDRC Gujrat in M/S Raman Dayabhai Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (1)CPR300,(P-307).
Delay in settlement of claim is deficiency in service under C.P.Act,2019 as per Honbl’e SCDRC, Bihar in Hindustan Maliables vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1994(1)CPR,249.
Issue No.4:-
As per the receipt/tax invoice exhibited by the Complainant clearly shows money receipt with GST furnished to the complainant by the authorized service centre to the Complainant & accordingly the Complainant paid Rs. 3,79,717/- on dt. 12.10.18 and the Complainant paid for repair of his vehicle. On the otherhand, the Op No.1 & 2 contended that, they deputed their surveyor to assess the expenditure incurred or damage cause to the vehicle for Rs. 2,57,700/-. The assessment made by the surveyor under the policy is cryptic assessment moreso non-application of mind & liable to interfere by this Commission. The difference of amount is contradictory because the authorized service centre/workshop provided receipt of Rs. 3,79,717/- whereas the surveyor assessed Rs. 2,57,700/- which created doubt & the same is gone in favour of Complainant. Report of damage by surveyor only acceptable when no other evidence available to contradict the genuineness of claimed so assessment of surveyor not acceptable to the Commission. When Complainant annexed receipt of payment towards repair by authorized service centre, which is credible evidence the same have weight age to be accepted & the surveyor have no force. Further onus on the insurer to contradict with credible evidence, the OP No. 1&2 failed to provide such evidence on record.
Issue No.5:-
At the time of accident, the Driver Deepak Kumar Rana, who has got a valid Driving License issued by R.T.O., Dhenkanal on which it is clearly shows that, the driver already have got the Driving License to drive heavy vehicle from dt. 16.04.2013 to 15.04.2033, as well as it reveals from the Driving License of the driver issued by R.T.O, Dhenkanal that, he is eligible to drive transport heavy vehicle from dt. 16/10/2017 to 15/10/2020. But the OpNo.1 &2 without scrutinized/ verified & non-application of mind came to conclusion that, at the date of accident, the driver has got no valid license. The Op No.1 &2 in a casual manner repudiated the claim of the petitioner in a silly ground which is not acceptable to this Commission.
It is further reveals from the record & contention of the Ops the only issue on which claim of the Complainant repudiated was the validity of Driving License of the driver, who drives the vehicle at the time of accident. Ld. Counsel for Op No.1 &2 contended that the vehicle in question was a heavy vehicle goods carrier traveler weight capacity to transport goods 40200kg. to drive such vehicle the driver should have valid Driving License endorsed as ‘TRANS’ means Transport Driving License specifically issued for such vehicle & Deepak Rana the driver not have TRANS DL, therefore they repudiated rightly the damant of claimant (insured). We have already mentioned earlier that, the Driving License of provider have Driving License in which TRANS DL validity mentioned from dt. 16.10.2017 to 15.10.2020 & the accident was happened on dt. 14.06.2018 well within the prescribed period without any doubt as the appropriate authority R.T.O, Dhenkanal issued the Driving License in question. The insured vehicle has valid insurance issued by insurer HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. from dt. 31.05.2018 to 30.05.2019. Hence insurer is liable to pay the claimed of Complainant/consumer.
Neither the Complainant insured nor the insurer counsel provide any relevant case law in their favour, which are squarely or partly applicable to facts & laws involved in this case. Further the Op No.1&2 failed to contradict the point in issue. Further the issue on question of validity of Driving License of driver on favour of Complainant. Insurance Company can’t repudiated genuine claim soalso Insurance claim can’t be rejected in entirely for any minor violation of terms of insurance. The Insurance Company on which onus is to produce credible evidence to conclusively prove that original license was fake, but in contrary complainant produced valid Driving License of driver on date of accident, which is transport Driving License & valid period.
On the aforesaid discussion made by us we found that the Op No.1 &2 have repudiated the claim of complainant and this Commission by exercising its jurisdiction deem fit to grant relief to the Complainant, so also the repudiation letter issue by Op NO.1 &2 to the Complainant has mentioned no claim and the same treated as repudiation letter issued illegally without application of mind which is liable to be quashed and as such it is accordingly quashed.
Further Op No.1 &2 are liable to pay Rs. 3,79,717/- and other additional amount as per order below.
ORDER
It is directed by this Commission taking into consideration of the facts & circumstances and issues so discussed we are of the opinion that, Op No.1 &2are directed to pay Rs. 3,79,717/- to the Complainant with interest @6% P.A. from the date of claim till its realization and in addition to it Rs. 5000/- towards litigation cost within a period of one month to the complainant, failing which interest @9% P.A will be payable by the Ops till its realization. The complaint case is allowed.
Issue extract of the order to the parties for compliance.
Pronounced in the open Court, on this the 7th day of September,2022.
I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Document Exibited-
- DL of Deepak Rana (Driver)
- Insurance Cover note, Policy of validity.
- Expenses incurred by Complainant issued by service centre.
