Date of filing:- 28/01/2014
Date of Order:- 01/11/2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 02 of 2014.
Suresh Chandra Kar S/o Late Bishnu Prasad Kar aged about 45(forty five)years, occupation – Cultivation and Bussiness R/o ward No-14(fourteen) Mastertikra, Bargarh P.s. Bargarh (Town)Dist- Bargarh
..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-V e r s u s -
Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Bargarh Branch, At/Po-N.H-6 near Gurudwar Chowk, Bargarh , P.s & Dist- Bargarh.
..... ..... ...... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri R.K. Pati, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party:- Sri B.K. Purohit, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt.01/11/2016 -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Sri K.P. Mishra, President:-
Resorting to the provision envisaged u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act - 1986 the Complainant has filed the case as enumerated thus, he has purchased a Tata-pick up van bearing Regd No-OR-17-G-1889 from one Authorized dealer namely M/S Laxmi Sales and Service(p) Ltd., Bargarh on Dt.28/09/2009 having being financed by Cholamandalam DBS finance Ltd., Bargarh and got it insured with the New India Assurance Company (here in after called as the Opposite Party)by paying an amount of Rs.15,209/-(Rupees fifteen thousand two hundred nine)only as premium in total for a period of one year from Dt. 01/10/2009 to Dt.30/09/2010 and was issued with a policy bond by the Opposite Party vide No-550901310900100200127 and was running the same for his business purpose by a driver namely Manoj Kumar Sahu, while the same coming from Keonjhar to Bargarh being loaded with Tamato met with an accident at Dasagharia of Jamankira Dist- Sambalpur as it’s rear wheel suddenly disconnected and the vehicle was completely damaged, but however the driver Manoj Kumar Sahu and a helper namely Ashis Kara were saved, but being terrified the driver fled away leaving the said helper on the spot and however he informed the complainant, and on getting information the Complainant informed the police of the locality over phone, the police reaching the spot of accident took the said helper to be the driver of the same, even in spite of his repeated protest that actually Manoj Kumar Sahu was the driver but the police did not belief him and took him to be the driver of the same and also submitted his papers accordingly as by that time he was also having his driving license and on that basis released the vehicle in favor of the Complainant .
Further the case as per the complaint is that the Complainant immediately after the same accident informed about the same to the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party also deputed his Surveyor and on verification the Surveyor submitted his report on Dt.29/04/2010 vide annexure 10(ten) in page No -13(thirteen) & No.14(fourteen). At the same time the Complainant also filed his own damaged claim before the Opposite Party bearing No-550901/31/100/190000004 annexed in the report 2(two) to 12(twelve) & 20(twenty) obtained by the Complainant through R.T.I and on being asked by the Opposite Party the Complainant informed them the aforesaid matter that actually Manoj Kumar Sahu was the driver of vehicle but the Opposite Party did not accept the fact and treated the claim of the Complainant as no claim on Dt. 17/10/2011 and repudiated his such claim without any information to him which he could know only after repeated inquiry in the office of the Opposite Party about his claim on Dt.28/11/2013 as being advised by the insurance authority to take the shelter of the court as such the cause of action arosed on Dt. 28/11/2013. And in support of his such claim has filed a voluminous documents as annexure 1(one), 2(two), 3(three), 4(four) & 5(five) by obtaining from the Opposite Party through R.T.I application.
On perusal of the complaint, documents filed therewith and hearing the counsel for the Complainant the case was admitted, on being noticed the Opposite Party appeared and filed their version along with numbers of documents denying the claim of the Complainant solely on three pretext such as the claim is barred by limitation as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act- 1986, secondly the dispute with regards the driver and the driving license of the driver as invalid and ineffective and lastly on the amount as excessive against the report of the Surveyor.
While dealing with the case as produced by both Complainant and the Opposite Party we found that the case of the complaint is admitted by the Opposite Party so far as the purchase of the vehicle concerned and the same being insured with them but their plea of repudiation of the claim is solely based on three pretext as mentioned above, firstly the case is filed beyond the period of limitation as provided by the Act, secondly the dispute regarding the driver and driving license of the driver as invalid and ineffective one and thirdly the amount claimed is not sustainable and hence prayed for the dismissal of the case.
And in our view also the fate of the case rest on those three points as such to be examined .
After going thoroughly in to entire materials available in the record, submission made by their respective counsel in course of their arguments we are of the view that so far as the point of limitation is concerned on Dt. 21/04/2010 the vehicle concerned met the accident and immediately thereafter the Complainant has informed the police and also made his claim before Opposite Party with all relevant documents but the same was repudiated by the Opposite Party Dt.17/10/2011 without intimating the same to the Complainant as alleged by him, and the same could come to his knowledge on date Dt.28/11/2013 only when he was advised by the authority of the Opposite Party to take shelter of the court as his amount claimed was beyond their local authority to sanction and in the mean time oral and paper transaction between both the parties was in process, which is quite evident from the materials available in the record and specially in the letter sent by the Opposite Party on Dt.20/12/2013 vide it’s letter No. 55000:RTI:BBSR:2013:5969 by Regd Post where from it can be safely presumed that the decision of the Opposite Party came to the knowledge of the Complainant on Dt. 28/11/2013 and on Dt. 29/11/2013 he has asked for the details of all relevant documents through R.T.I application and after getting so on Dt. 27/01/ 2014 he has filed the case. So it is within time from the date of his knowledge and accordingly it is answered affirmative in his favor as such in our view the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court (2009) cited by the Opposite Party is not applicable in this case.
Secondly while dealing with the question of the driver, validity of the driving license of the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time of accident is concerned, having gone through the O.D claim, the police paper and the evidence adduced by the Complainant in shape of affidavit of the driver Manoj Kumar Sahu and also the pleading of the Complainant, wherein he has claimed that actually. The said Manoj Kumar Sahu was the driver at time of accident but since he had fled away from the spot of the accident being terrified, in view of the circumstances we are of the view that it is quite but natural in most of accident cases that the drivers do not dare to stay in the spot, furthermore in the mean time the police has seized the license of the helper taking him to be the driver of the concerned vehicle so it is natural for any lay man like the Complainant to mention the name of the helper as the driver in his O.D. claim petition but subsequently he has reported the real name of the driver with his valid D. license to the Opposite Party but they did not take it in to their cognizance as such being helpless with the advice of his advocate he has mentioned the name of Manoj Kumar Sahu as the driver in his complaint because in our view, had it not been so he could have stick up to the name of the helper mentioned as driver by the police in it’s report in furtherance to our view in transport vehicle specially when transporting goods from a long route like Keonjhar to Bargarh always a driver is accompanied by a helper but in this case coincidentally the helper is also having a driving license which has caused the confusion, and as regards the validity of the driving license of the driver, Manoj Kumar Sahu he has got a valid driving license to which the Opposite Party has not at all taken in to their consideration nor given any rebuttal to that effect. More over even if the plea of the Opposite Party would be taken in to consideration that the said Ashis Kara was driving the said vehicle at the time of accident having a light motor vehicle license which in their view is an invalid & ineffective one, in this context we perused the record and the M.V.Act and found that there is no specific definition with regard to the light motor vehicle and an indication is only there that carrying goods below 7500 kg of goods is a light motor vehicle and in this case both the laden and unladen weight of the vehicle is below the prescribed weight, furthermore if at all the said driver was driving the same then also he was accompanied with an experienced driver having valid driving license, at the same time the cause of the accident has got no nexus with the type of license or the modality of driving because it is seen from the record that the said accident has occurred due to the sudden disconnection of the rear wheel of vehicle in question and on verifying the route permit issued by the transport authority it is clear that the vehicle is light goods vehicle in other words a light motor vehicle, hence taking all the possible angle in to consideration. We are of the view that no policy condition as laid down by the insurer company has been violated in either way as such are liable to pay compensation to the Complainant in this regard we would refer to a decision of our own high court reported in 2010(1) OLR – 431. And in our view the decision cited by the Opposite Party is not applicable to this case.
Thirdly on the question of the quantum of compensation claimed by the Complainant the Surveyor has assessed the damages and loss sustained and the repair work undertaken and submitted his report for an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees one lakh sixty thousand)only but on the contrary the Complainant has claimed for an amount of Rs.6,81,158/- (Rupees six lakh eighty one thousand one hundred fifty eight)only fragmenting the same in different heads but to substantiate those claim he has not filed a single scrape of paper excepting the financial statement of the Cholamandalam DBS Ltd. nor has filed any document to the present status of the said vehicle on the other hand the Opposite Party through his advocate vehemently objected to the excess amount against the assessment of the Surveyor in such circumstances in our considered view the Complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,60,000/-(Rupees one lakh sixty thousand)only towards the repair work of the vehicle and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only as compensation towards his mental agony for causing delay in dealing with his case which amounts to the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party and hence the order follows.
Hence the Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount Rs.1,60,000/-(Rupees one lakh sixty thousand)only for the loss caused by the accident of the vehicle and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only for the mental agony sustained by the Complainant for the deficiencies caused by the Opposite Party delaying in dealing with the case of the Complainant, within thirty days from the date of the passing of the order and in default of which an interest @9% (nine percent) per annum would accure on the whole amount till realization of the same.
Accordingly we pronounce the order in the open Forum to-day on Dt.01/11/2016 and the case is disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, (Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
. M e m b e r.
