Orissa

Jharsuguda

CC/25/2020

Binaya Kumar Sharma S/O- Late Omkarmalla Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd. Jharsugdua Branch Office, - Opp.Party(s)

Abdul Zalil

10 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL                                      COMMISSION, JHARSUGUDA

                                                           ****************

                                         CONSUMER CASE NO.25/2020

Binay Kumar Sharma, age-37 Years,

S/o- Omkarmalla Sharma,

At/Po: Talpatia,

Ps/Dist.- Jharsuguda, Odisha…….……………….…….…………Complainant.

                                                 

Versus

 

Branch Manager,

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Jharsuguda Branch,

At- 1^st Floor, Mishra complex, kalimandir Road,

Po- kalimandir Road,

Ps/Dist- Jharsuguda, Odisha…….…………….………...…....……..Opp. Parties.

 

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                                Sri Abdul Zalil,Adv. & Associates.

For the Opp. Party                                 Sri A.K. Mishra, Adv. & Associates.

 

Present:-     1. Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President.

                     2. Smt. Anju Agrawal, Member.

 

Date of hearing- 13.09.2022                                        Date of order- 10.11.2022

 

Presented by, Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President: -

1. The case of the complainant is that the complainant is the registered owner of Bolero Pick up Van bearing Regd. No.OR 21E-2075, having its chassis No. MAIZN2GHKCIC 29211, Engine No. GHCIC20327. The complainant used the vehicle for transporting goods to earn his livelihood by means of self-employment. The vehicle was insured under the O.P having insurance policy No. 163401/31/15/6300000655 having validity from 01.05.2015 to 30.04.2016.  On dtd. 14.03.2016 the aforesaid vehicle was stolen from the house of the complainant.  In fact prior 4 to 5 days of the occurrence the complainant did not find any work for the vehicle, so he parked the vehicle beside his house.  On dated 15.03.2016 he saw that the vehicle was not found where it was parked.  He start searching the vehicle at nearly areas but could not trace out the same.  Immediately lodged an FIR at Talpatia out post under Jharsuguda Police Station regarding the theft of his vehicle.  The police conducted investigation but could not found any clue and submitted his final report.  In the mean time the complainant informed the occurrence to the O.P.  he lodged a claim before the O.P and requested to settle the claim. The O.P asked the complainant to wait till submission of charge sheet by the police. When the police submitted charge sheet the complainant again requested the O.P to settle the claim.  Thereafter the O.P demanded for several documents from the complainant with respect to the vehicle like R.C. Book, Insurance paper and driving lisence of the driver and fitness of the vehicle. Accordingly the complainant deposited the same before the O.P.  The complainant was in regular touch with the O.P to get back the claim amount. The O.P was also giving assurance to the complainant that the claim would be settled very soon.  But on dtd. 06.12.2019 the O.P issued a repudiation letter vide No. REF 163401/MCL/OD/JCN/SSP/343/2019 to the complainant informing in that his claim was repudiated as the vehicle did not have fitness on the date of occurrence/ theft and so mentioned that there was violation of Section-39 of M.V Act.  The O.P has illegally and arbitrarily repudiated the claim and committed deficiency in service on his part.   

2.     The case of the O.P. is that the O.P./ National Insurance Company Limited is a Body Corporate of the Government of India having its corporate office at Kolkata, divisional Office at Sambalpur and branch office at Jharsuguda. The O.P in its version submitted that the case is not a consumer dispute and barred by limitation. Hence the case is not maintainable. Further the O.P submitted that the complainant is not entitled to get relief because the vehicle had no fitness at the time of theft.

3.Perused the records and it reveals that the present case is a consumer case and the following issues are framed:-

ISSUES:-

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
2. Whether the O.P. is deficient in its service by repudiating the claim?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled  to get relief?

Issue No-1: Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

           The O.P. submitted the case is barred by limitation as theft was occurred on 14.03.2016 and this case was filed on 12.06.2020. But actual cause of action in the present case arose when the O.P repudiated the claim of the complainant on 06.12.2019.  Hence the case is not barred by limitation.  The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No-2: Whether the O.P. is deficient in its service by repudiating the claim?

          The O.P repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the vehicle had no fitness at the time of theft.  Perused the records and it reveals that the vehicle was stolen during insurance period but at that time fitness of the vehicle was expired. The theft occurred on 14.03.2016 but the fitness expired from dt.08.10.2015.

In the case of United India Co. Ltd. V. Gian Singh(2006) 2 CPJ 83(NC); 2006CTJ 22/ (CP) (NCDRC) it has been held that in a case of violation of condition of the policy as to the nature of use of the vehicle the claim ought to be settled on a non-standard basis.  The O.P can settle the claim on non-standard basis by paying 75% of admissible claim which was set out in the judgement of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Narayan Prasad Appa Prasad Pathak(2006) 2CJP 144(NC). But the O.P did not settle the claim and proved to be deficient in its service by repudiating the claim of the complainant. The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No:-3: Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief?

         For deficiency in service of O.P the complainant is entitled for relief. Accordingly it is ordered;-

                                                        ORDER

           The complaint is allowed on contest.  The O.P. is directed to pay 75% of the claim amount which is Rs.2,61,000/- ( Rupees two lakh sixty one thousand only) within one month from the date of this order, failing which the entire amount will carry 12% interest P.A. till realization. Further the O.P is directed to pay Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) for harassment and mental agony along with pay Rs.10,000/- ( Rupees ten thousand only ) for litigation expenses.

Order pronounced in open court on 10^th November, 2022. Supply free copies to the parties.

           I Agree            

1. Agrawal, Member                              J. Mishra, President.

                                 Dictated and corrected by me

 

                                        J.Mishra, President.