Orissa

Jajapur

CC/78/2014

Dipti Sankar Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chola M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pranab Kumar Das Patnaik

15 May 2017

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 15th day of  May,2017.

                                                      C.C.Case No.78 of 2014

Dipti Sankar Mishra  S/O Ramakanta  Mishra

Vill. Garadeswar,P.O.Bamadevpur

P.S/Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1.Chola MS General Insurance Co.Ltd, 45/46 2d floor,Ashok Nagar,

     Bhubaneswar.

2.Branch Manager,Mahidra & Mahindra Finance Ltd,Jajpur Branch

   At/P.O/P.S/Panikoili Dist,Jajpur.

3.M/S Aditya Motors, Aurit of Aditya Car Automative(P) Ltd,N.H.5

   Bhamphakuda, phulnakhara, Dist.Cujttack.

                                                                                                                             ……………..Opp.Parties.                  

For the Complainant:                             Sri P.K.Daspattnaik, Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties : No.1                     Sri A.Ku,Dash, Advocate .

For the O.pp.Parteis No.2                      Sri P.K.Ray, Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties No.3                      Sri A.K.Kanungo, P.P.Mohanty, B.P.Das, L.Swain,

                                                              Sri G.D. Senapati, Sri B.K.Tripathy, Advocates.     

                                                                                                   

                                                                                                                Date of order:  15.05.2017.

SHRI  JIBAN BALLAV DAS , PRESIDENT .      

The brief facts of the petitioner’s case is that , the petitioner being an unemployed youth in order to earn his livelihood purchased a Mahindra Bolero on the financial assistance of O.P.no.2 to carry on his business . The O.P sanctioned Rs.6,00,000/- for purchase of Mahindra Bolero . On 27.05.14 while the vehicle of the complainant bearing Regd. No.0R-04-P-7177 was returning  to the house of the petitioner ,  met with an accident  and got capsized  near Bamadevpur  at about 9P.M . This fact was immediately informed over telephone to the O.P Mr. Srikanta Kar who is the authorized agent for O.P.no.1 . Thereafter on the advise of O.P.no.1 and 2, the complaint of the petitioner was registered on 30.05.14 through its Toll Free Telephone number vide claimNo.3373026288  in respect of the Insurance Policy No.3373/00391233/000/00. Thereafter the O.P.no.1 engaged a Surveyor and on the advice of the surveyor the petitioner lodged an information on 08.06.2014 before the Beat House at Rambag under the Jajpur Police station . The matter of the  said accident has been duly registered vide Rmbag BHSDE No.126,127& 131 dt. 08.06.14 . Thereafter the damaged vehicle was  sent to the work shop of O.P.no.3  situated at Phulnakhara for necessary repair . On 07.07.14 the O.p.no.1 wrote a letter to the petitioner for clarification of the matter regarding two different driving license after which the petitioner approached the O.p.no.1 and 3  for settlement of the claim on several times  but there was no response from the side of the O.Ps. On 31.07.14 the O.p.no.1 wrote a letter to the petitioner that the Driving License  of Chaitan Ch.Jena was not valid ,so the claim of the petitioner was repudiated on 19.08.14 due to absence of valid driving license . It is submitted by the petitioner that without just and proper assessment of the factual aspect of the case the O.Ps. repudiated the claim of the petitioner without just cause .However the petitioner by arranging money repaired  the damaged  vehicle and cleared up their entire cost of repairing  ie. Rs.1,25,702/- and released the vehicle from its  workshop . The cause of action arose on 31.07.2014 and on 19.08.2014 , when the O.Ps  arbitrarily ,in a careless manner repudiated the genuine  claim of the petitioner which is supported by an affidavit .Hence the complainant is entitled to get the Insurance claim of the said vehicle from O.P.no.1.

            On the other hand the O.p.no.1 filed written objection denying the maintainability of the claim of the petitioner on various score. However the O.P.no.1 admitted to  have issued Insurance Policy bearing No.3373/00344844/000/02 in respect of the vehicle No.0R-04-P-7177 after taking necessary premium vide Annexture-1. It is also in the written objection the O.pno.1 that the O.P received the information of the accident vehicle on May,30/14  and immediately appointed

Mr.Atish Samanta to assess the loss and damaged caused to the vehicle vide Annexture-2. On the demand of O.p.no.1 the complainant submitted the documents as admitted by the O.p.no.1. The O.p.no.1 also took the plea that the Driving License of the driver was not valid at the time of alleged date and time of accident, so the claim of the petitioner repudiated as  on 31.07.14. vide Annexture-3.Hence the O.p.no.1 submitted that there was no deficiency of service in any manner and the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed.

            The O.P.no.2 also filed separate written version challenging the plea of the petitioner and submitted that there was no deficiency of service by the O.ps in any manner. It is admitted that the reason assigned by O.p.no.1 for repudiation of claim was unreasonable and unsustainable in the eye of law. The OP.no.2 categorically mentioned in para-6 of the written version that the Insurance company can not be permitted to repudiate the genuine claim of the petitioner on flimsy grounds. As such the O.p.no.1 is liable to settle the claim by making payment of the claim amount directly to O.p.no.2 as per  the provisions of the law governing such insurance claim settlements and in view of the decision reported in Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Chief Executive Officer & Vice Chairman ,Gujarat Maritime Board Vers.Haji Daud Haji Haryun Abu & Co reported in (1996) II SCC-23 and in Civil Appeal No.7515 of 2001 with C.A Nos.8495,8496 of 2001,3393,4024,8000 & 8002 of 2002 : M/S Krishna Food and Baking Industry P.Ltd, Vers.M/S New India Assurance Co. Ltd & another reported in 2009(1) CPC 1  and catena of other decisions.

            It is further contended by O.P.no.2 in the written version that there was no whisper of any allegation of any deficiency in service in respect of O.P.no.2 for which the case against O.P.no.2 may be dismissed and the O.P.no.1 be directed to release the claim amount in favour of O.P.no.2 that the same could be adjusted in the loan account of the complainant. The written version is supported by an affidavit of Authorized Signatory.

            The O.P.no.3 in the written version denying the petition, averment of  the petitioner submitted that there was no valid cause of action to file a such case , as there was no deficiency of service . The O.P.no.3 admitted regarding the purchase  of  a Mahindra Bolero with the financial assistance of O.P.no.2 and took delivery of the same from its showroom situated at Bhamphakuda, Phulnakhara,Cuttack. Copy of the vehicle order taking from dt.14.06.2012 along with the copy of the retail invoice dt.20.06.12 of O.P.no.1 is enclosed vide Annexture-C/1 series. It is also admitted that the  petitioner  brought his damaged vehicle to the workshop for repair.. The O.P.no.3 after

necessary repair of the vehicle , handed over the same to the petitioner after  payment of Rs.1,25,702/- vide Annexture-C/2. It is also stated that the complainant was granted money receipt No.66547 dt.29.08.14 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and money receipt No.48908 dt.29.08.14 for an amount of Rs.20,000/- as Annexture-C/3 series . In view of the above facts the O.p.no.3 prayed that since the O.Pno.3  only repaired  the damaged vehicle which has nothing to do with the 

settlement,  the cost  of repair  which need to be fastened with O.P.no.1. Hence, the prayer  to dismiss the case against O.P.no.3 .

            On the above pleadings of the parties ,the points for consideration is as to whether there was deficiency of service on the part of  the  O.P

            Heard both the sides at length in the matter. Perused all the copies of documents available in the record. The O.P.no.2 in its written version vide para-6 categorically stated that the O.p.no.1 was not justified in repudiation  of the claim  regarding the valid driving  license of the driver at the time of accident which fact was the sole basis for  repudiation of the claim of the petitioner as revealed from the written version of O.p.no.1 as well as the argument of learned counsel of O.p.no.1. The law is well settled  that regarding minor and  silly grounds the genuine claim of the petitioner can not be repudiated by the O.p.no.1 when the vehicle was under a valid Insurance coverage after due payment of premium which is well admitted by the O.Ps and is a fait-accomplice.

The learned advocate for the complainant has filed no. of decisions reported in

1.CPR-2007(3) -163,Hon’ble State Commission, Moharastra.

2.CPR-2011-247(2)-Hon’ble Kerala State Commission.

3.CPR-2010(3)-213-Hon’ble State Commission, Shimla

4.Sultan Singh vs. N.I.A (N.C)

Therefore, considering the entire gamut of evidence , as well as  relevant documents and argument by contesting  parties ,  it is established  beyond the spell of doubt that the O.P.no.1 without just and reasonable cause repudiated the  genuine claim of the petitioner in gross violation of law and Rules in force as stated above.   Hence, there was gross deficiency of service on the part of O.p.no.1 by repudiating  the genuine claim of the petitioner without sufficient cause.

Hence this Order

            For the forgoing discussion the dispute is allowed against the O.P.no.1 and dismissed against O.P.no.2 and 3  . The O.P.no.1 is directed to pay Rs.1,25,702/- the cost of the repair of the damaged vehicle borne by the petitioner .The O.Pno.1 also directed to pay Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) towards  litigation charges  within one month of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to realize the same through the process of  court of law.                     

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 15th day of May,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.