Orissa

Bargarh

CC/7/2018

Smt. Namita Pradhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. B.K. Mahapatra

26 Feb 2024

ORDER

Date of filing:- 27/01/2018.

Date of Order:-26/02/2024.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

B A R G A R H (ODISHA).

Consumer Complaint No. 07 of  2018.

1)         Smt. Namita Pradhan age 62(sixty two) years wife of Narayan Chandra Pradhan,    resident of Ward No. 18(eighteen), Bandutikira, Po. Bargarh, Ps. Bargarh Dist.      Bargarh represented through her Power of Attorney and husband Sri Narayana      Chandra Pradhan, Ward No.18 ( Bandurtikira) Po. Bargarh, Ps. Bargarh, Dist.             Bargarh (abate since dead)

1(a)      Narayan Pradhan, age 69(sixty nine) years, Narayan Chandra Pradhan S/o late        Khedubar Pradhan, occupation retire bank's employee R/o Bargarh Ward             No.18(eighteen), Po. Bargarh, Ps. Bargarh, Dist. Bargarh.

1(b)      Manish Pradhan, age 30 (thirty) years, S/o Narayana Pradhan, Occupation   business At. Bargarh ward No.18(eighteen), Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.

1(c)      Pritish Pradhan, age 33(thirty three) years, S/o Narayana Chandra Pradhan, Occupation business R/o. Bargarh, Ward No. 18(eighteen), Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.          

                                                                        .....       .....     .....                     Complainants.

-: V e r s u s :-

Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Bargarh Branch, At. Bargarh, Po.

Bargarh, Ps/Dist. Bargarh.                                                ..... .....       .....   Opposite Party.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :-            Sri B.K.Mahapatra, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party  :-                    Sri P.K.Mohapatra, Advocate with associates.

                                                            -: P  R  E  S  E  N  T :-

Smt. Jigeesha Mishra               .....       .....       .....       .....       .....       P r e s i d e n t.

Smt. Anju Agrawal             .....            .....       .....       .....       .....       M e m b e r (W).

Dt.26/02/2024.                                 -: J   U  D   G  E  M  E  N  T:-

Presented by Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President:-   

1)         The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is registered owner of the vehicle No.OR-17-J-7200 (TATA INDIGO ECS). The Complainant has paid a consideration of Rs.7,130/-(Rupees seven thousand one hundred thirty)only to insured her vehicle covering third party plus comprehensive risk for sum assured amount of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakh)only for the vehicle. The Opposite Party has insured an insurance policy bearing policy No. 345601/31/2014/5448 valid from Dt.22-03-2014 to Dt. 21-03-2015. On 21-07-2014 the vehicle of the Complainant while coming from Chandrahasini to Bargarh met with an accident at about 4.00 P.M. near Kankarinala, Kanchanpur under Saria Police Station in the State of Chhattisgarh. As a result of the accident the vehicle of the Complainant sustained immense damage. The Complainant through her husband informed the Opposite Party regarding the accident. The Opposite Party after getting information from the Complainant deputed their surveyor who visited the spot of the accident and took photograph on various angel both of the place of the accident and the damaged vehicle at the spot. On the advice of both the Opposite Party and their surveyor the Complainant brought the vehicle to local mechanic Sanjaya Sharma, Nagenpali Chowk, N.H.6 Bargarh, who has got his work shop unit of repairing vehicle of different brand under the name style M/s Tata Auto Care. After the vehicle of the Complainant was brought to local mechanic M/s Tata Auto Care the Opposite Party deputed its surveyor to the workshop of M/s Tata Auto Care, Bargarh where the vehicle of the Complainant was laying for repair. After the repair work of damaged vehicle of Complainant was completed M/s Tata Auto Care submitted its bill to the Complainant amounting to Rs.4,80,470/-(Rupees four lakh eighty thousand four hundred seventy)only. The Complainant submitted all the original bills along with police report to the Opposite Party through her husband and requested the Opposite Party to pay the sum insured amount of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakh)only. The Complainant in person and through her husband visited the office of the Opposite Party at Bargarh several times, each time the officers of the Opposite Party were assuring that they are looking in the matter and soon after the claim is approved by their Divisional Office, Sambalpur the claim of the Complainant will be settled and sum insured amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakh)only will be paid. The Opposite Party on dated 24-01-2017 vide its letter No. L 562/2017 Dt.24-01-2017 repudiated the claim of the Complainant. The Opposite Party repudiated the genuine claim of the Complainant. Hence the Complainant filed this case before this Commission.

           

2)         The case of the Opposite Party is that the Opposite Party Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd filed its version and admitted that the Opposite Party has issued private car package insurance policy bearing No. 345601/31/2014/5448 in respect of Tata Indigo CS LS vehicle bearing Regd. No. OR-17-J-7200 for sum assured amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakh)only and the policy was valid from 22-03-2014 to 21-03-2015. The Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant has submitted 8 (eight) numbers of repairing bills of Rs. 4,80,470/-(Rupees four lakh eighty thousand four hundred seventy)only with some money receipts said to have been issued by different firms. Upon receipt of the completed claim form and the repairing bills from the Complainant the Opposite Party deputed independent qualified personel for verification of genuineness of the bills so submitted by the Complainant. From the bills verification report of investigator Pradip Kumar Das, Kolkata the Opposite Party came to know that the bill bearing No. 211 dt. 10-09-2014 said to have been issued by one Shyam Auto Centre, 12 Mangoe lane, Kolkata-700001 for Rs. 2,15,250/-(Rupees two lakh fifteen thousand two hundred fifty)only  bill bearing No. 490 Dt. 21-07-2015 said to have been issued by one Tata House 14, Justice Dwarkanath Road, Kolkata-700020 for Rs. 52,839/-(Rupees fifty two thousand eight hundred thirty nine)only and money receipt said to have been issued by Tata House in Letter paid Ref. Tata House/2016/056 dt. 12 February 2016 showing receipt of cash amount of Rs. 78,597/-(Rupees seventy eight thousand five hundred ninety seven)only and Rs. 52,839/-(Rupees fifty two thousand eight hundred thirty nine)only on dated 21^st July 2015 towards cost of parts of Indigo Ecs vide No. OR-17-J-7200 which were major bills for the cost of Body Cell & Spare Parts submitted by the Complainant are not genuine and fake. Hence the Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the Complainant and issued letter of repudiation dt. 24-01-2017 to the Complainant informing the grounds of repudiation of the claim in detail. The Opposite Party after taking all precautions and considering all relevant facts and circumstances of the case had taken the final decisions in good faith with due application of its mind and therefore the act of the Opposite Party can not be termed as deficiency in service in any manner. Hence the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the case.

 

3)         After perusal of complaint petition, version and documents filed by the Parties and following issues are framed :-

Issues

1. Whether the Opposite Party is deficient in service ?
2. Whether Complainant is entitled to get relief ?

 

Issue No.1(one)

            It is the admitted fact that the Policy No. 345601/31/2014/5448 was valid at the time of accident. After perusal of record it reveals that the Complainant has submitted FIR paper, policy paper including bills of repairing. As per insurance policy the sum insured is Rs. 3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakh)only and the Complainant submitted bills for Rs. 4,80,470/-(Rupees four lakh eighty thousand four hundred seventy)only. The surveyor appointed by the Opposite Party assessed loss at Rs. 2,60,448/-(Rupees two lakh sixty thousand four hundred forty eight)only. The Opposite Party has submitted the Surveyor report. As per the submission of the Opposite Party the bills submitted by the Complainant are not genuine and fake and the Opposite Party submitted documents on that regard. When the policy was valid and the surveyor assessed the loss, it was the duty of the Opposite Party to settle the claim. But the Opposite Party did not settle the claim which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No.2(two)

            For deficiency in service of the Opposite Party the Complainant is entitled to get relief. The issue is answered accordingly.

            As per supra discussion the following order passed:-

                                                            O  R  D  E  R

4)         The Complaint is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs. 2,60,448/-(Rupees two lakh sixty thousand four hundred forty eight)only  to the Complainant within one month from the date of this order. Further the Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand)only compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only for litigation expenses to the Complainant, failing which, the entire awarded amount shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till realization.

            Order pronounced in the open court on 26^th day of February 2024.

            Supply free copies to the Parties.

                                                                                             Typed to my dictation

                                                                                              and corrected by me.

                                                                                                     

                                    I agree,                                               ( Smt.Jigeesha Mishra)

                                                                                                    P r e s i d e n t.

                       (Smt. Anju Agrawal)

                             M e m b e r(w).