Orissa

Cuttak

CC/134/2017

Satyabrata Mohapatra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Oriental Insurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S K Dalai

30 Nov 2019

ORDER

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

C.C No.134/2017

 

Sri Satyabrata Mohapatra,

Vill/PO:P.S:Niali,Dist:Cuttack.                                                                  … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

                                                                                               

Branch Manager,

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,Plot No.442,

Near Palamandap,Link Road,Cuttack-753012.                                          … Opp. Party.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member(W).

 

Date of filing:   14.11.2017

Date of Order: 30.11.2019

 

For the complainant        :       Sri S.K.Dalai,Adv. & Associates.

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

 

 

Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

The complainant having attributed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice to the O.P. has filed this case before this Forum seeking appropriate relief in terms of his prayer in the complaint petition.

1. The facts of the complainant’s case stated  in brief are that the complainant is the registered owner of a Toyota Etios Cross Car bearing Regd. No.OD-5K5003 and it was insured with the O.P under Private Car Package Policy-Zone-B vide insurance policy No.345105/31/2017/5606.  The said insurance policy was in force from 23.12.16 to 22.12.17.  The photo copies of the registration certificate of the vehicle and the insurance certificate have been filed and marked as Annexure-1 series.

In the night intervening 5/6.1.2017 when the complainant was travelling in his car from Anandapur to Cuttack, on the way at about 2.30 A.M. it got dashed against a truck loaded with bamboos from behind, when the said truck suddenly applied break. The front show, head light, radiator etc of the car were substantially damaged due to such accident and ultimately on the basis of the report lodged at the local police station, corresponding station diary entry was made at Korei Police Station.Annexure-2 is the photo copy of the said station diary entry.The said damaged vehicle was then brought to Toyota Field Motor Pvt. Ltd. for repair and cost of repair as incurred by the complainant came to Rs.2,55,091/-only.Aannexure-3 series are photo copy of the invoice bill of the damaged car.

After such accident, claim was lodged with the O.P and even after repeated requests made by the complainant; the claim could not be settled.It is important to leave a mention here that under the Motor Insurance Pvt. Car Package Policy, Zone-B the O.P has to bear the full cost of repair of the damaged vehicle but in the instant case it was not done.The O.P is still liable to pay Rs.55,000/- towards the repair charges of the said vehicle as per the invoice although the payment of the rest amount has been transferred to the account of the complainant on 23.1.17.

The activities of the O.P has caused serious mental agony and harassment to him for which he filed the present case against the O.P with the specific prayer that the O.P may be directed to pay Rs.55,000/- as per the policy agreement with 9% interest thereon as well as the compensation and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- in the interest of justice.

2. The O.P filed the written version and contested the case.  At the outset it is stated that the case is not maintainable both in fact and law.  It is further contended that the claim of the complainant has already been settled on payment of Rs.2,07,800/- as per the report of the duly licensed surveyor who had visited the spot and therefore the question of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice has never arisen.  According to the O.P the present case has been filed challenging the quantum of claim and not for deficiency in service.
3. The O.P his filed the photo copy of the insurance policy and the policy conditions issued in favour of the complainant which have been filed and marked as Annexure-A & B respectively.  Annexure-C is the photo copy of the survey report filed in this case issued by the licensed surveyor, Engineer Sanjeeb Kumar Mohanty with net assessment of loss to the tune of Rs.2,09,000/-.  Annexure-D is the photo copy of the discharge voucher showing payment of insurance dues to the tune of Rs.2,07,800/- after consideration of the report of the surveyor.  The said amount has been paid on 31.1.17 to the complainant towards full and final settlement of the claim and duly signed by the complainant.  As such it is prayed that the objection raised by the complainant in his complaint petition does not merit consideration and the same may be dismissed in the interest of justice.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as of the O.P. and gone through the pleadings of the case together with the annexures filed thereto.

Annexure-D is the photo copy of the discharge voucher showing the payment of insurance claim of Rs.2,07,800/- to the complainant.It has been duly signed by the insured.It is crystal clear from Annexure-D that the complainant has acknowledged the receipt of the above amount from the O.P towards repair charges of the damaged vehicle in full discharge of his claim vide its policy No. 345105/31/2017/5606.The humble submission made by the learned advocate for O.P reveals that once the insurance dues has already been received by the insured on full and final satisfaction of the claim, the question of inadequacy of such claim does not arise at all.That apart no endorsement has been made by the complainant on Annexure-D to the effect that the said insurance dues have been received with objection for any reason.It is also equally important to leave a mention here that the complainant has not whispered a single word about the assessment of loss made by the licensed surveyor and that he has already signed Annexure-Dhaving received the amount of Rs.2,07,800/- towards full and final settlement of his claim settled on the basis of the surveyors report.It is tantamount to suppression of material evidence by the complainant his claim is not proved satisfactorily.

5. In view of the above, it is held that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the O.P.  Hence ordered;

                                                                                          ORDER

                                   The case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P.

                    Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble President in the Open Court on this the 30^th day of November,2019  under the seal and signature of this Forum.

                                                                                                                                                  

    (   Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                                         President.

                                                             

                                                                                                            (Smt. Sarmistha Nath)

                           Member(W)