DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                                                C.C.NO.11 OF 2017

Present: Sri Rabindranath Mishra         - President.

                 Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattanaik   - Member.

                  Sri Purna Chandra Tripathy       - Member.

  Gunanidhi Pradhan, aged – 62 years

S/O: Late Karunakar Pradhan At: Kendupadar,

 Po/PS: Phulbani Town Dist: Kandhamal .                                                              ……………………….. Complainant.                                                                                     

                Versus

Branch Manager,

S.B.I General Insurance Co. Ltd, Berhampur

AT/PO: Sai Complex, Gandhinagar, Berhampur

Dist: Ganjam, Odisha.                                                                                                       …………………………….. OPP. Parties.

For the Complainant: Self.

For the OPP. Parties: Sri V.V Ramadas Advocate, Phulbani

Date of Order: 28-10-2017

O   R   D   E   R

                The case of the Complainant in brief is that he had availed a vehicle loan from the S.B.I Main Branch Phulbani. As per advice of the S.B.I, the said vehicle was insured under the O.P. On 11-09-2015, he proceeded to Phulbani after purchasing the vehicle (Indigo Car) but at about 6.30.P.M, the new vehicle met an accident at Nayagarh near Pathani Samant Nurshing School and the vehicle was damaged. He reported the matter before Sadar P.S of Nayagarh on 12-09-2015 who registered the case vide P.S case No.63/2015. He also intimated the fact to the O.P on the same day of the accident and after taking Zima he shifted his vehicle to the Show Room of Swapna Motors, Bhubaneswar for repairing. After getting retail invoice from Swapna Motors, the Complainant paid Rs. 93,577/- to the Swapna motors towards repair charge of the vehicle by arranging the money on the basis of hand loan. As per advice of the O.P the Complainant submitted all the relevant documents for settlement of his claim. After 15 months on 28-11-2016, the O.P issued a repudiation letter to the Complainant with a ground that the D.L of the driver was not valid at the time of the accident. So, again the Complainant had submitted a letter of R.T.O, Phulbani regarding the genuineness of the license of the driver but the O.P put deaf year to his claim. The Complainant availed car loan in order to earn his livelihood from the taxi business. Hence, he compelled to file this complaint against the O.P for a direction to the O.P to pay the entire repairing bill along with compensation of Rs. 30,000/-.

-2-

                 The case of the O.P as per his version is that the driver of the Insured vehicle did not possess valid driving license at the time of the accident. The claim is not admissible due to breach of term and conditions of the policy. So, the O.P has not committed any deficiency in service for which the Complainant is not entitled for any damage, cost, interest and compensation in any manner.

                The further case of the O.P is that the Complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable under section 2(1)(d) of the C.P Act and the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the issues are relating to Motor accident causing damage to the vehicle.

                We have heard the Complainant and the learned counsel appearing for the O.Ps. We have gone through the complaint petition, the version filed by the O.Ps and the documents filed by both the parties in support of their case. In this case the main point of consideration is that Whether the driving license of the driver Sri Ganapati Nayak was genuine or not at the time of the accident. It is seen from the repudiation letter given by the O.P on 28-11-2016 that the claim application of the Complainant was rejected on this sole ground. On verification of certificate given by Regional Transport Officer, Kandhmal, Phulbani, It is seen that the driver license issued in favor of Sri Ganapati Nayak is genuine and he was authorized to drive transport vehicle from the date of issue till 17-12-2016. The date of issue of the driving license was 30-05-1990 as reveals from the driving license of the driver. So, it is crystal clear that the driving license of the driver Sri Ganapati Nayak was valid on the date of the accident. In this said circumstances the repudiation letter given by the O.P to the Complainant to disallow his claim has no merit in the eye of law. There is no suitable evidence given by the O.P to prove that this complaint is not coming under the purview of C. P Act and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The O.P has not filed any survey report of the surveyor. In absence of the survey report the estimate given by the Swapna Motors Private Ltd can be accepted as per evidence of the Complainant. He had deposited Rs. 93,577/- towards repairing charges before Swapna Motors as per money receipt.  There is no reason to disbelieve the certificate of Regional Transport Officer, Kandhamal, Phulbani regarding genuineness of the

driving license of the concerned driver. Accordingly the complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed on contest against the O.P.

                 Hence, the O.P is directed to pay Rs. 93,577/- to the Complainant towards repair charge of his  vehicle along with compensation of Rs. 5000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which the Complainant shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of 9 % per annum on the entire awarded amount from the date of order   till the date of payment.

                The C.C is disposed of. Supply free copies of this order to both the parties at an early date.

MEMBER                                                                             MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT