Orissa

Cuttak

CC/108/2022

Monalisa Jena - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Liberty General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

L Dash & associates

24 Jul 2023

ORDER

            IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.108/2022

1.       Monalisa Jena,

          Wife of Late Gyana Ranjan Jena.

 

  2.       Pratush Kumar Jena,

S/O: Late Gyana Ranjan Jena.

 

3.       Bansidhar Jena,

S/O: Sukadev Jena,  

 

  4.       Gyatri Jena,

W/O: Sukadev Jena.

 

All are of Vill:Totasahi,

P.O:Jaripada,P.S:Tangi,

Dist:Cuttack.                                                       ... Complainants.

 

          Vrs.

 

Branch Manager,

Liberty General Insurance,

Regd. Office at Central Point,

Mouja:KharvelNagar,Plot No.501/1741/1846,

Shreya Square,Bhubaneswar-751012.                      ....Opp. Party.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:   07.06.2022

Date of Order:  24.07.2023

 

For the complainants     :        Mr. L.Dash,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P               :          Mr. A.A.Khan,Adv. & Associates.

 

            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

Case of the complainants as made out from the complaint petition in short is that the deceased Gyana Ranjan Jena had purchased a motorcycle bearing Regd. No.OD-04-N-6989 which was also insured with the O.P vide policy no.201230110419701139600000.  Unfortunately, while returning home on 13.9.2020 by riding the said motorcycle, the deceased Gyana Ranjan Jena met with an accident with another vehicle thereby sustaining severe injuries to his person and during treatment he had succumbed to his injuries on 28.9.2020.  In this connection FIR was registered at Tangi Police Station vide P.S.Case no.193 of 2020.The claim was repudiated by the insurer when the complainants raised their claim though on the said day i.e. on 13.9.2020, the insurance was valid.  The deceased Gyana Ranjan Jena was possessing a learner’s driving license bearing no. OD-05/0051171/2019 which was also valid then.  When the claim was repudiated, the complainants have approached this Commission seeking the assured sum of money from the O.P alongwith interest thereon @ 9% per annum effective from 13.9.2020 till the total amount is quantified alongwith a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and a further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of their litigation.

The complainants together with their complaint petition have filed copies of several documents in order to prove their case.

2.       The O.P has also contested this case and has filed his written version wherein he has mentioned that the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed with cost.  According to him, the deceased/insured Gyana Ranjan Jena was driving his Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle bearing Regd No.OD-04-N-6989 without having a valid driving license.  This being a gross violation to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, he had thought it proper to repudiate the claim when made by the complainants.  As such, he has prayed to dismiss the complaint petition with cost.  He admits through his written version about the policy as was obtained by the deceased Gyana Ranjan Jena which was effective from 1.10.2019 till the midnight of 30.9.2020.  He also admits about the accident of the insured Gyana Ranjan Jena while he was returning home with his said motorcycle.  He also has mentioned in his written version that as per the policy claim, it was mentioned that one Kamala Kanta Singh was driving the said motorcycle during the alleged incident and that the deceased Gyana Ranjan Jena was only a pillion rider.  The O.P had engaged the Aryavan Associates and Pvt. Ltd. to investigate into the incident and the said organisation had also made a discreet enquiry after which, report was submitted to the O.P. 

          The O.P has also filed copies of several documents alongwith his written version in order to support his stand.

          The complainants have filed the evidence on affidavit of complainant no.1 Monalisa Jena, who happens to be the wife of the deceased Gyana Ranjan Jena but on perusal of the contents of the evidence affidavit as filed and available in the case record, it is noticed that the same is only a reiteration of the complaint petition.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainants is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and if he had practised any unfair trade?

iii.        Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs as claimed by them?

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

After going through the contents of the complaint petition, written version, all the written notes of submissions as well as evidence affidavit of complainant no.1 alongwith all the copies as available in the case record, it is noticed that the deceased Gyana Ranjan Jena was having a motorcycle which was insured and valid during the alleged accident i.e. on 13.9.2020.  The deceased Gyana Ranjan Jena had possessed a learner’s license bearing No.OD-05/0051171/2019 which was valid from 27.12.2019 to 26.6.2020.  As per the conditions stipulated therein in the Learner’s Driving License, the deceased Gyana Ranjan Jena was to drive motorcycle only when he has a pillion rider with him who will be having a valid/permanent driving license and his vehicle being driven is to carry plates at front and rear side with the English alphabet “L” in red colour. 

The Tangi Police Station after getting the FIR had registered the same vide P.S. Case no.193 of 2020.  The copy of FIR as submitted by the complainants address to the IIC,Tangi Police Station dated 2.10.2020 do   not reveal about any pillion rider to have accompanied alongwith the deceased Gyana Ranjan Jena at the alleged time of occurrence.  The copy of the formal FIR vide Annexure-B as filed by the O.P and as available in the case record, goes to show that at the nick of time it was the deceased Gyana Ranjan Jena only who was riding his motorcycle on his way back to home when the accident had taken place.  As per Annexure-D/1, it is noticed that the same is a letter addressed to the Manager(Claims) of the O.P wherein Bansidhar Jena who happens to be the father of the deceased Gyana Ranjan Jena, had written through his such letter dated 30.10.2020 praying for withdrawal of the claim as made by him earlier.  Ofcourse the contention of the O.P that one Kamala Kanta Singh was riding the motorcycle as pleaded by the complainants and an affidavit has also been filed to that effect is found to be a complete false since because the complainants have not taken such plea earlier and after filing of the case before this Commission such an affidavit has been sworn in, which is certainly an afterthought as it appears from the case record.  Be that as it may, the deceased Gyana Ranjan Jena who had a learner’s driving license should not have driven his motorcycle in the absence of a pillion rider with a permanent and valid driving license.  Moreso, the said deceased Gyana Ranjan Jena should have affixed plates both on the frontal and rear side of his motorcycle with the English alphabet “L” in red colour since because he had a Learner’s driving license.  Thus, even if there was insurance coverage and it was valid during the alleged incident, the driving of the motorcycle by the deceased Gyana Ranjan Jena without a permanent driving license grossly violates the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  Accordingly, the repudiation of the claim as made here in this case is found to be within the ambit of law and thus this Commission cannot come upto a conclusion that there was any deficiency in the service of O.P and that the O.P had practised unfair trade.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the O.P.

Issuesno.i&iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainants is not maintainable and the complainants are not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by them.

 

                                              ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.P and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 24^th day of July,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.          

                                                                        

                                                                                                        Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                    President

                                                                                                          Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                     Member