Orissa

Cuttak

CC/11/2019

Khirod Chandra Patra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,TATA AIG GIC Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R K Pattanaik & associates

21 Jun 2023

ORDER

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

                                             C.C.No.11/2019

         Khirod Chandra Patra,

         S/O: Late DuryodhanPaptra,

         At:Shikharpur(Uparsahi),

         P.O:CollegeSquare,P.S:Chauliaganja,

         Cuttack-753003.                      ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.                        

 

1.     The Branch Manager,

TATA AIG GIC Ltd.,Cuttack Branch,

SreeKailashplaza,Link Road,  

Cuttack-12

 

2.    TATA AIG GIC Ltd., represented

Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

Having its registered office At:2^ndFloor,Constantia Building,

Dr.U.N.Brahamchari Road,Kolkata-17,

West Bengal.                                                                      ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    22.01.2019

Date of Order:  21.06.2023

 

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

For the O.P.s 1 & 2  :         Mr. A.A.Khan,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                               

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition bereft unnecessary details in nutshell is that the complainant had purchased one Tata Truck bearing Regd. No.OD-05-A-5939 in order to earn his livelihood.He had insured his vehicle with the O.Ps bearing policy no.015775471200 where the sum assured for the said policy was of Rs.10,20,000/- effective from 24.11.2017 upto 23.11.2018.  The complainant had paid annual premium towards the insurance of the said truck to the tune of Rs.45,275/- without being a defaulter. The truck had met with an accident at Manguli Square in between 6 A.M to 6.30 A.M.on 4.12.2017 as it dashed with the bull which was crossing the road.  The engine of the truck was damaged upto 70%.  F.I.R was lodged at the Tangi P.S and the matter was reported to the O.Ps.  A Surveyor namely Ashok Dash was deputed by the O.Ps who had visited the spot and had taken photographs of the said damaged vehicle.  The damaged truck was taken to the authorized workshop M/s. Jiban Body Builder where it was estimated that the repairing cost would be of Rs.4,35,100/-.  Though the complainant had submitted his claim form on 3.1.18 and had to wait for 11 months, being frustrated he had to issue legal notice to the O.Ps on 19.12.18 regarding non-settlement of his claim and ultimately he had filed this case claiming repairing cost of the vehicle of Rs.4,35,100/- alongwith 9% interest thereon per annum and further has prayed for compensation towards his mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and also for cost of his litigation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- from the O.Ps.

Together with his complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Both the O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their joint written version.  According to the written version of O.Ps, the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed as there was no deficiency in their service.  The O.Ps admit to have issued an Auto Secure Commercial Vehicle Package Policy bearing No.015775471200 in favour of the complainant towards his truck bearing Regd. No.OD-05-A-5939 having Engine No.697TC56FRZ580138 & Chassis No.373134FRZ756277 which was effective from 24.11.2017 upto 23.11.2018 with certain terms and conditions.  They also do not dispute about the truck which met with an accident on 4.12.2017 at Manguli Square and thereby was damaged.  They admit to have deputed Surveyor, Er. Ashok Dash who had visited the spot and had inspected a damaged truck which was shifted to the authorised workshop M/s. Jiban Body Builder at Choudwar of Cuttack.  According to the O.Ps, the vehicle that which was inspected before issuance of the insurance policy was quite different from the vehicle that which was produced to be inspected by the complainant on 5.12.18 which is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  Accordingly, they have no responsibility towards the repair of the vehicle which was not insured by them.  Thus, they have alleged that the complainant/claimant with a malafide intention to make undue financial gain has made such arrangements and has filed this case.  Accordingly, they had repudiated the claim of the complainant vide their letter dated 29.5.2018.  The O.Ps through their written version have thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition as filed it being not maintainable. 

The O.Ps have also filed copies of the said  policy of the said truck alongwith other copies of documents including evidence affidavit of the Surveyor, Er. Ashok Dash and also the evidence affidavit of one Jayant Kumar Roy who is Working as Zonal Claims Manager, Dy. Vice-President of the O.Ps.

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 proper 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.Ps ?

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

              Issue no.ii.

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

While perusing the complaint petition, the written version and the available documents in this case record and going through the evidence affidavits as filed from the side of the O.Ps, it is noticed that the evidence affidavit of the Surveyor, Er. Ashok Dash reflects that he was deputed by the O.Ps to assess the loss of the truck bearing Regd. No.OD-05-A-5939 with Engine No.697PC56FRZ580138 & Chassis No.373134FRZ756277 belonging to Khirod Chandra Patra, the complainant of this case.  The said Surveyor has mentioned in his evidence affidavit that while physically inspecting the vehicle produced before him for inspection, he observed that the photographs of the vehicle as provided to him by the insurer which were taken during the pre-inspection of the vehicle, that which was insured, was not tallying with the vehicle that which was produced before him to be inspected.  Accordingly, he had submitted his report to the O.Ps on 11.3.2018.  Annexure-A as produced from the side of the O.Ps is the said inspection report of the said Surveyor,Er. Ashok Dash who has mentioned at page-48 which is the heading “note” where he has mentioned that“on verification it has been observed by viewing the pre-inspection photographs of the vehicle provided by the insurer are not tallying with the vehicle which I have inspected”. While perusing the evidence affidavit of the Zonal Claims Manager of the O.Ps, it is noticed that he also has stated about the policy package as provided by the O.Ps to the truck of the complainant which was effective on 4.12.2017 but as per the surveyor’s report who was deputed to assess the loss of the damaged vehicle of the complainant the photographs those which were taken of the truck that which was insured by the O.Ps were not tallying with the vehicle as produced before the surveyor on 5.12.2017.  Thus, according to the said Zonal Claims Manager, it is a gross violation to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy since because the damaged vehicle was not being covered under the policy insurance as obtained earlier.  The evidence affidavits of the Surveyor Er. Ashok Dash and that of the Zonal Claims Manager Mr. Jayant Kumar Roy has not been challenged by the complainant of the case. Thus, after going throughall the credible documents, this Commission finds no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.   Accordingly, this issue goes against the complainant.

Issues no.i& iii.

From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here in this case that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him. Hence, it is so ordered;

 

 

                                                          ORDER

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

Order pronounced in the open court on the 21^st day of June,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.  

                                                                                                                            Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                       President

 

 

 

                                                                                                                              Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                        Member