Orissa

Jajapur

CC/42/2017

Priyabrata Pradhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,National Insurance Co. Ltd,Jajpur Road Branch Office. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Alok Kumar Pani.

24 Apr 2019

ORDER

IN  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                     

                                             Dated the 24th day of April,2019.

                                                      C.C.Case No.42 of 2017

Priyabrata Pradhan    , S/O Prana Krushna Pradhan  

Vill. Badamangalpur , P.O. /P.S.Dharmasala  ,

Dist.-  Jajpur                                                                             …… ……....Complainant .                                                                   .                                     

                                                  (Versus)

Branch Manager,National Insurance Co.Ltd, Jajpur Road Branch office  ,

At.Main Road, Jajpur Road, P.O. Jajpur Road  Dt. Jajpur

                                                                                                                          ……………..Opp.Parties.                                                                                                                                          

For the Complainant:                        Sri  A.K.Pani, Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties :                         Sri G.C.Panda, Miss B. R. Rout, Advocates.                       

                                                                                                     Date of order:   24. 04. 2019.

SHRI   JIBAN  BALLAV  DAS,  PRESIDENT  .  

The petitioner has filed the present dispute against the O.P alleging unfair trade practice due to illegal repudiation of his Insurance claim against the vehicle bearing No.OR-04-D-6315,involved in the accident.

            The facts shortly as stated by the petitioner in the complaint petition are that in order to maintain his lively hood under self employement basis, the petitioner has purchased the above cited vehicle which was insured with the O.P vide policy No.163101/31/15/6300002008 valid from 21.09.15 to 20.09.2016 .During subsistence of the policy the above cited vehicle met with an accident  on 31.05.16  near Samparu. The matter of accident not only  was reported to police but also to the O.P  (Insurance company) .The O.P deputed the surveyor who after conducting the survey submitted the report in respect of the alleged vehicle. The O.P after receipt of the survey report as well as verifying all the documents which are submitted by the petitioner finally vide his letter No.163101/Mot/ clm/2016 /218 dt. 28.08.16 intimated the petitioner that his claim has been repudiated on the ground that on the date of accident  the permit stands in the name of Naguli Behera but not in the name of the petitioner and on this ground the O.P closed the claim file of the petitioner as “ No claim “ .After receipt of the repudiation letter, the petitioner though intimated his grievance to the chief grievance officer to reconsider his Insurance claim  but no result. Hence finding no other alternative,  the petitioner has filed the present dispute for redressal of his grievance with the prayer to direct the O.P  to allow the  claim with 10% interest as well as the O.p may be directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-

            After appearance the O>p has filed the written statement denying the allegation of the petitioner .In the written version the O.P has taken the only main plea that the Insurance claim of the petitioner against the above cited vehicle has been closed as “ No claim” since on the accident of the alleged vehicle the permission   was not in the name of the petitioner rather it was in the name of  Naguli Behera.

            In view of the above assertion and counter assertion we perused the record in details  and after perusal of the documents filed from both the sides our observations in  the present dispute are as follows:

            Admittedly the petitioner is the owner of the above cited vehicle and on the date of accident i.e 30.05.2016 though the permit was not in the name of the petitioner but subsequently the permit has been transferred in the name of the petitioner on 04.08.2016 by the R.T.O,Chandikhole.

            After verification of the petitioner’s letter dt.04.09.2016 vide Annexture-5 and 6  wherein the petitioner has intimated the higher authority of O.P that Naguli Beehra is the seller of the alleged vehicle from whom the petitioner has purchased the alleged vehicle. As such closing the Insurance claim file of the petitioner by O.P as “ No claim “ on the ground that on the date of accident the permit was in the name of Naguli Behera is  not only illegal but also comes within the purview of unfair trade practice.

            In addition to it the petitioner have relied on the observation of Hon’ble national Commission and State Commission reported in 2017(2)-CPR-252-N.C ( National Insurance Company Vrs. Jogesh Ray & Anr) wherein it is held that

Claim can not be rejected on account of vehicle not possessing a valid permit on the date of accident”.

11 2008(1) CLT-55-N.C ( G Khothain ach iar Vrs.United Insurance Co Ltd ) wherein it is held that

“United Insurance Company can not repudiate the claim when there is no breach of term        

of policy because Insurance is a matter of contract between the parties.”

111. 2012(3)CPR-169-H.P (National Insurance Co.Ltd through its Div.Manager Vrs. Shkrishna Chand & Anr)  wherein it is held that

“Breach with respect of plying of vehicle without permit is only breach with respect to provision of motor vehicle Act and it is not a breach of term and conditions of breach of policy”.

The above observations from our side in the present dispute clearly go to establish that the O>p has committed gross deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice  in closing the Insurance claim file of the petitioner as “No claim” for which the O.P is liable to pay compensation along with Insurance claim against the alleged vehicle .

Hence this Order

            The dispute is allowed against the O.p. The O.P is directed to pay the Insurance claim of the petitioner against the alleged vehicle within one month  after receipt of this order along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/-,failing which the above awarded amount will carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the present dispute till its realization . No cost.

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 24th  day of  April,2019. under my hand and seal of the Forum.