BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI.
C.C. No. 08 OF 2018.
Present: Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattnaik - President (I/c.).
Sri Purna Chandra Tripathy - Member.
Mrs. Jyotsnarani Sathua, aged 42 years.
W/O-Sanjib Kumar Sahu
AT-Housing Board Colony
PO/PS- Phulbani Town.
Dist: Kandhamal ……………….Complainant.
-Versus-
1. Branch Manager
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
At- Vikashplaza Market Complex
Main Road, Phulbani.762001.
Po/Ps- Phulbani.
Dist- Kandhamal.
2. The Divisional Manager.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
At/Po/Ps- Berhampur.
Dist- Ganjam, Odisha. ……………Opposite-Parties.
For the Complainant: Advocate Sri Rajib Kumar Pradhan, Phulbani.
For the Opp. Parties: Advocate Sri N.K Patra .Phulbani.
Date of order:-25th March 2021.
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant owned a Tata Indigo car bearing No- OD 02L-9606 for earning her livelihood purpose which was insured with the OPs Company for the period from 14/01/2016 to 13/01/2017 vide policy No- 55060331150100002522. On dated 02/01/2017 at about 7.30AM one truck bearing No- OR 09-G-3159 dashed against the above car at Mahipur while the vehicle returning from Bhubaneswar to Phulbani, resulting the vehicle was damaged. On the same day the matter reported in writing by Sanjay Kumar Kanhar in the outpost of Mahipur under Nuagaon police station. Accordingly the case was registered vide P.S case No- 01 of dated 02/01/2017. Thereafter the fact intimated to the OP No- 1 who gave instruction for shifting of the alleged vehicle to the service center “ Maa Durga Motors Works” Bhubaneswar. The OP No- 1 deputed surveyor who visited the spot in order to assess the loss. According to the complainant the policy was in force and the vehicle had a valid fitness certificate at the material time of accident. He also mentioned that two drivers were engaged for the said vehicle namely Sanjaya Kanhar and Srikanta Behera and both were present at the time accident. The complainant submitted the claim form along with all required papers before the OPs in order to settle the claim. On dated 07/02/2018 the OPs repudiated the claim on the ground that suppression of driver driving the vehicle at the material time of accident and ineffective driving license of the driver. The complainant in her petition stated that the service center Maa Durga Motors Works, Bhubaneswar prepared an estimate for Rs 3, 89,360/- towards the repairing of the vehicle which also submitted before the OPs. On repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the OPs, the complainant on her own effort arranged money of Rs 3, 58,782/-and released the above vehicle on payment to the service center. For the above circumstances the complainant suffered in both financially and mentally for the deficiency in service and negligence of the OPs. Result of which the present complaint filed and claimed reliefs as under.
- To issue direction to the OPs to settle the claim in favour of the complainant and to pay Rs 3,58,782/- towards repairing cost of the vehicle.
- To award interest @ 12% P.A on the claim amount from the date of accident to till the date of payment.
- To grant compensation of Rs 30,000/- for mental agony and financial loss.
- Further to grant Rs 5000/- for litigation cost and other reliefs as deem fit.
The complainant has also filed certain documents in support of her case including the money receipt incurred for repairing of the damaged vehicle. Accordingly the case of the complainant admitted and issued notice to the OPs for appearance and filling of version. Upon the notice, the OPs appeared through their counsel and file version. In Para 6 of the version, the OPs denied the engagement of two driver to drive the above vehicle and the presence of both the driver inside the car at the time of accident. Similarly in para7 the OPs submit that the driver Sanjay Kanhar was the informant in the alleged accident vide Nuagaon P.S Case No- 01 dtd 02/01/2017 corresponding to G.R Case No- 05/2017 file of the Hon’ble SDJM, Nayagarh , and stated that the informant was drive the car at the time of accident for which the DL of Sanjaya Kanhar was seized by the police. According to the OPs the DL of Sanjaya Kanhar was not effective as the driver does not have authorized to drive the LMV transport also the alleged accident car. In Para 9 of the version the OPs justified the repudiation of the claim of the complainant on the ground that the DL of the driver Sanjaya Kanhar was in effective and on suppression of material fact by mentioning the driver name Srikanta Behera in the claim form instead of Sanjaya Kanhar , also denied regarding the submission of any estimate or bill for repairing of the vehicle . On the other hand in para11 the OPs agreed that the surveyor given an estimate of Rs 2, 32,000/- towards the cost of spare parts and repairing charges with other expenses. Further the OPs claimed that there is no deficiency in service on their part and for dismissal of the complaint as no merit.
After careful consideration of the above facts, we peruse the petition, written version, evidence affidavits and related documents filed from both the sides. We are of the considered view that the policy was effective at the time of accident. It is admitted that the accident taken place within the policy period, and for assessment of loss the OPs deputed the surveyor who placed his report dated 07/07/2017 for a sum of Rs 2,32,000/- , the OPs investigated the fact of accident and collected the certified copy of FIR and DL of Sanjaya Kanhar . The OPs repudiated the claim solely on the ground that the alleged vehicle was driven by Sanjaya Kanhar whose DL was not effective and not authorized to drive LMV transport ( the present vehicle ) at the time of accident , and suppression of material fact . The OPs disputed the driving license and during the hearing of the case OPs stated the alleged D.L was seized by the police, but we do not understand why the OPs did not file the seizure list relating to the Nuagaon P.S case No- 01 dated 02/01/2017 corresponding to GR case No-05/2017 and final form of the noted case in order to prove their stand, simply file the FIR certified copy which the complainant already filed before this commission. So in our view the burden of proof shifts upon the OPs to prove their stand beyond all reasonable doubts, similarly the deficiency and negligence well proved as the claim lodged on dated 13/01/2017 and same was rejected by the OPs on 07/02/2018 after about a year. Hence order.
O R D E R
Therefore the case of the complainant is allowed against the OPs , the OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs 2,32,000/- as per the surveyor report dated 07/07/2017 along with interest @6% P.A from the date of claim to till the date of payment , apart from that the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs 1000/- for litigation cost to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order , in the event of non compliance of this order all the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9 % P.A from the date of order to till the date of payment . Accordingly the C.C disposed off.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 25th the day of March 2021.
Free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
