Orissa

Cuttak

CC/76/2019

Chairman,Maa Saraswati Sishu Bidya Mandir - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

A K Samal

30 Aug 2022

ORDER

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

                                                                      C.C.No.76/2019

MAA SARASWATI SISHU BIDYA MANDIR,

At:Kunehipada,Trisulia,P.O:Brahmanigaon,

P.S:Baranga,Dist:Cuttack,Pin-754005,Odisha,

Represented by its Chairman,Smt. Manorama Dash.             ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.        TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,

Unit No.38,5^th Floor, BMC Bhawani Commercial Complex,Sahiee Nagar,

Bhubaneswar,Pin-751007,Dist:Khurda,Odisha,

Represented by its Branch Manager.

 

2.        M/s. NAVYA MOTORS,

Near Hanuman Temple,At:Pira Bazar,P.O:Bhanpur,

P.S:Cuttack Sadar,Pin-753001,Dist:Cuttack,Odisha,represented

by its Proprietor/Partner....Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    12.07.2019

Date of Order:  30.08.2022

 

For the complainant:                Mr. A.K.Samal,Advocate.

For the O.Ps No.1 :                    Mr. A.A.Khan,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.2:                         None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.             

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that the complainant had purchased a Force Traveller Bus 17 STR from O.P No.2 and had insured the said vehicle through O.P No.1.  The vehicle having met with an accident was repaired at the garage of O.P No.2 but no claim is being initiated against the said O.P No.2.  While it was parked in front of the parking area of the said school in the night of 26.12.18 an unknown vehicle had dashed the vehicle of the complainant thereby causing damage to it.  In the next day when the O.P No.1 was duly intimated about the accident, the O.P No.1 had thereby deputed surveyor to inspect the damage and the vehicle was repaired thereafter by O.P No.2.  The said vehicle being insured was valid with effect from 9.11.18 to 8.11.19 and the premium amount of Rs.34,512/- was paid.  After purchasing the said vehicle, the complainant had taken all initiative on 12.11.18 before the RTO,Cuttack for registering the vehicle and had deposited all the requisite fees thereto.  As per the instruction of O.P No.2, the complainant was compelled to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards the advance amount for repairing of the damaged vehicle.  The O.P No.1 had repudiated the claim of insurance as made by the complainant on the ground that the route permit as submitted for the said vehicle on 22.2.19 was not effective on the date of accident i.e., on 26.12.18 and thus, it is claimed that there was no valid route permit of the said vehicle on 26.12.18.  Ultimately being harassed with severe mental agony, the complainant has filed this case seeking direction to O.P No.1 in order to pay the claim amount of Rs.54,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum till the amount is quantified together with compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and for any other reliefs  as deemed fit and proper.

            The complainant has filed xerox copies of documents in order to support his case. The complainant has also filed his evidence through one Manorama Dash, the Chairman representing the complainant.

2.         Out of the two O.Ps as arrayed in this case, O.P No.2 having not contested has been set exparte.  However O.P No.1 has contested this case and has filed his written version.  According to O.P No.1, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and is thus liable to be dismissed with cost.  O.P No.1 admits to have issued a commercial vehicle package policy bearing no.015902551900 in favour of the Traveller Bus 17 STR having engine no.D67019030 and Chassis No.MCiE4DGAHKP034596 which was valid with effect from 9.11.18 to the midnight of 8.11.19.  According to the O.P No.1 the surveyor, Er. Ashok Kumar Das had surveyed and assessed the loss and had submitted his report on 30.1.19 with a net assessment of loss to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.  O.P No.1 in his written version has further averred that the route permit as provided by the complainant reflected that there was no valid route permit on the date of accident i.e. on 26.12.18.  Having no valid route permit, the claim was repudiated and thus there was no deficiency in service as alleged for which the O.P No.1 has prayed to dismiss the case with cost.

3.         Keeping in mind, the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contentions of the written version as filed by O.P. no.1, this Commission is of a view to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

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

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

Issue no.ii.

            There is no dispute that the complainant had purchased a Traveller Bus which was covered under the insurance policy which was dashed by one unknown vehicle in the night of 26.12.18.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle was repaired by O.P No.2 who had charged a sum of Rs.54,000/- and the said amount was paid to O.P No.2 on demand by the complainant.  The O.P No.1 had repudiated the claim on the grounds that the vehicle had no valid permit in the night of 26.12.18.  They had demanded to the complainant for producing if there was any valid route permit on 26.12.18 in favour of the said vehicle in question and since because the complainant could not produce any document to that effect, the claim of the complainant was repudiated.  The Annexures as filed by the complainant alongwith his complaint petition goes to show that infact the fees for registering the vehicle and to get all the requirements for making the vehicle roadworthy were complied by the complainant.  Moreso, it is the specific contention of the complainant that the vehicle while being parked in front of the parking area of the school in the night of 26.12.18 had met with an accident.  When the same contention is not in dispute, the repudiation of the claim that the vehicle had no valid route permit appears to be quite ridiculous and thus a flimsy ground taken.  There is nothing from the side of the O.Ps in order to appraise this Commission that the vehicle was on movement and was not parked at the parking area so as to draw attention of this Commission that the vehicle was plying without any route permit.  Thus, this Commission after analyzing all these facts that the vehicle was parked when it was dashed by an unknown vehicle come to a conclusion that infact there was deficiency in service on the part of O.P No.1 by repudiating the claim as made bonafidely even though there was a valid insurance to that effect for the vehicle in question.  Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

            When the claim was repudiated by the O.P No.1, the complainant has filed this case which is definitely maintainable and thus the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                                ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against O.P No.1 and exparte against O.P No.2.  The O.P No.1 is thus directed to pay the loss amount of damaged vehicle of the complainant to the complainant as assessed by the surveyor of O.P No.1 together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of 26.12.18 till the total amount is quantified.  The O.P No.1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards the mental agony and harassment and also to bear the litigation expenses of the complainant to the tune of Rs.25,000/- within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 30^th day of August,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

 

                                                                                                                                                           Sri  Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                              Member