Orissa

Cuttak

CC/248/2023

Rekha Saha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,New India Assurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R K Pattanaik & associates

03 Jun 2024

ORDER

 

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

C.C.No.248/2023

 

            Rekha Saha,

W/o: Suresh Kumar Saha,

At present Resident of House No.20,

Housing Board Colony,CDA Sector-8,

Near Riverine Hospital,Dist:Cuttack-753014.               ... Complainant.

 

                      Vrs.

 

Branch Manager,

NewIndia Assurance Co. Ltd.,

Angul Branch,At:Daily Maraket,

                    PO:Anugul,Dist:Anugul-759122.                  ...Opp.Party.

 

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    25.07.2023

Date of Order:  03.06.2024

 

For the complainant:             Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P                :             Mr. R.Pati,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

                                                           

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition bereft unnecessary details in short is that she had purchased one Volkswagen Ameo Diesel hatch-back car in the month of April,2017 for a price of Rs.8,30,000/-, which was registered vide registration number OD-02-AK-8020.  She had also insured her said car with the O.P company under “Private Car Package Policy” vide Policy number 55040331190300005467 which was effective from 30.3.2020 to 29.3.2021 and the assured sum therein was of Rs.5,80,500/-.  On 29.7.21, while her car was proceeding from Angul towards Sambalpur, it was imbalanced and suddenly the car had dashed with the road divider causing damage to her car.  She had put forth her claim against her insurance policy before the O.P and on the next day a Surveyor was deputed by the O.P for the said purpose.  As per the advise of the said Surveyor, the complainant had taken her vehicle to the authorised repairer M/s. OSL Exclusive Pvt., Ltd. at Kolkata and an estimate of Rs.1,31,636/- was given by the said repairer  towards the repairing expenses of her damaged car. The O.P had not settled her claim rather, through their letter dated 19.4.2022 they had repudiated the claim of the complainant.  Having no other way out, the complainant has approached with her petition before this Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and has thus claimed the total repairing charge from the O.P amounting to Rs.1,31,636/- alongwith interest thereon @ 9% per annum effective from 17.12.2019 onwards.  She has also claimed for an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the O.P towards her mental agony and harassment and further another amount of Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of her litigation.  She has also prayed for any other order as deemed fit and proper.

Alongwith her complaint petition, the complainant has annexed copies of several documents in order to prove her case.

2.       The O.P has contested this case and has filed his written version wherein the O.P has urged that the case of the complainant being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed with cost.  The O.P admits to have issued a Commercial Vehicle Package policy bearing number 55040331190300005467 in favour of the complainant covering risk of her Volkswagen Ameo Diesel hatch-back car bearing registration number OD-02-AK-8020 which was valid from 1.9.2021 to 31.3.2022 subject to certain terms and conditions therein.  The vehicle had met with an accident on 29.7.21 and the complainant had lodged her claim before the O.P.  Er. Chittaranjan Shaw was deputed by the O.P as Surveyor to assess the loss and accordingly the report was submitted by the said Surveyor mentioning therein that net assessment of loss was of Rs.86,500/-.  But while processing the claim of the complainant for her said vehicle bearing registration number OD-02-AK-8020, the O.P could notice that there was no valid permit for her car at the time of the accident and no permit was ever issued for her vehicle as she had converted her vehicle from private use to commercial use on 19.6.2020. It is for the said reason, the O.P had repudiated her claim which was even intimated to the complainant through their letter dated 19.4.2022.  Accordingly, it is urged by the O.P that case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed.

Together with its written version, the O.P has annexed copies of several documents in order to support his stand.

The O.P has also filed evidence affidavit through one Malaya Preetiraja Swain working as Manager third party Cell of New India Assurance Company Ltd.  The said Manager Mr. Malaya Preetiraja Swain in his evidence affidavit has mentioned that the New India Assurance Company Ltd. had issued a Commercial Vehicle Package policy bearing number 55040331190300005467 in favour of the complainant thereby covering risk of her Volkswagen Ameo Diesel hatch-back car bearing registration number OD-02-AK-8020 which was valid from 1.4.2021 to 31.3.2022 but it was subject to certain terms and conditions.  The vehicle of the complainant had met with an accident on 29.7.2021 for which the O.P company had deputed Surveyor Er. Chittaranjan Shaw to assess the loss and accordingly the said Surveyor had made an assessment of the loss to the tune of Rs.86,500/-.  While processing such claim of the complainant as regards to his vehicle, the O.P Company could know that the insured vehicle of the complainant bearing registration number OD-02-AK-8020 was lacking valid permit at the time of the accident and there was no permit ever issued in favour of the said vehicle since after its inception and conversion from private use to commercial use with effect from 19.6.2020.  It is for the said reason; the claim of the complainant was repudiated on 19.4.2022.  It is for the said reason; it is urged through evidence affidavit of Malaya Preetiraja Swain to dismiss the complaint petition it being not maintainable.

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 complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P  ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her?

Issues 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 perusing the complaint petition, written version, written notes of submissions as filed from both the sides, evidence affidavit as filed by O.P as well as the copies of documents available in the case record, It is noticed that it is a fact that the complainant had purchased a Volkswagen Ameo Diesel hatch-back car in the month of April,2017 for a consideration of Rs.8,30,000/- which was registered vide bearing registration number OD-02-AK-8020.  It is also fact that the said car of the complainant was insured with the O.P company vide policy bearing number 55040331190300005467 and the same was valid from 30.3.2020 to 29.3.2021.  Subsequently, the complainant had opted to change the policy package for her car from private use to commercial use and accordingly a Commercial Vehicle Package Policy bearing number 5500331210100000117 was issued by the O.P company for her vehicle bearing registration number OD-02-AK-8020 and it was valid from 1.4.21 to 31.3.22.  It is not in dispute that on 29.7.21 her said car had met with an accident while it was plying from Angul towards Sambalpur and after getting the claim intimation the O.P company had deputed Er. Surveyor Chittaranjan Shaw who had assessed the loss to be of Rs.86,500/-.  But the claim of the complainant was repudiated since because there was no permit ever issued and the said vehicle of the complainant was lacking valid permit at the time of the accident.  When the complainant opted to use her purchased car for commercial use and had opted for the Commercial Vehicle Package Policy, it is mandatory for the complainant under the provisions of Section-66 of the Motor Vehicle Act to obtain the permit whenever the vehicle of the complainant would be plying.  It may ply with passenger or without but the valid permit is mandatory and since when there was no valid permit available for the vehicle of the complainant in question during the time of accident, by repudiating the claim of the complainant, the O.P cannot be said to be deficient in his service.  Accordingly, this issue thus goes against the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant cannot be said to be not maintainable and the complainant is also not entitled to any relief as made by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                              ORDER

The 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 3^rd day of June,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

 

                                                                               Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                       President

                     

 

                                                                          Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                             Member