DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO.07 OF 2016
Brijnath Singh ( 55 Years.),
S/O- Ram Jharokha Singh, Occu: Business,
RO/PO: Bandhbahal, PS: Banharpali,
Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha………………………………………………Complainant.
Versus
- Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited,
Nisha Tower, 2nd Floor, Bijunagar,infront of Ujjawal Bajaj,
PS/ Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha.
- Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited,
Panposh Road, Rourkela,
Dist: Sundargarh, Odisha.……………….………....….……...Opp. Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant Miss B. Nageswari, Adv.
For the Opp. Party Shri B.K.Purohit, Adv. & Associates.
Date of Order: 29.06.2017
Present
1. Shri S.L.Behera, President.
2. Shri S.K.Ojha, Member.
Shri S.K.Ojha, Member : - In brief, the complainant’s case is that, the complainant is the owner of one Mahindra GENIO-SC-2WD vehicle bearing Regn. No. OR-23E-7071, got insured his vehicle with the O.Ps. from dtd. 01.09.2012 to dtd.31.08.2013. The said vehicle met with an accident on dtd. 06.04.2013 within insurance period, claim lodged before the O.Ps. and reported in Rengali Police Station and as per the direction of the O.Ps. the complainant brought the vehicle to one authorized service center for repairing purpose. The O.Ps. appointed a Surveyor for inspection who inspected the incident. The complainant incurred repairing expenses of Rs.2,43,321/- only. After assessing loss and submitting Surveyor’s Report by the said surveyor the O.Ps. settled the claim in Rs.57,000/- only. Being dissatisfied with the settlement amount the complainant filed this case.
The O.Ps. Insurance company filed written version admitting the fact of insurance and challenged on maintainability of the case and submitted that this is a time barred case. The claim has been settled as per Surveyor Report and prayed for dismissal of the case.
Heard from the parties, gone through the case record and documents available.
Both the parties have filed several judgments and citations in relation to their case. The complainant has filed a number of citations such as (i) Uttarakhand SCDRC, Dehradun, between New India Assurance Company Vrs. Gajendra Singh Butola and another reported in 2009(3) CPR82, wherein it has been held that, “where Insurance company made a mistake in issuing policy of Insurance in name of erstwhile owner despite vehicle had been transferred and duly registered in name complainant, it could not avoid liabilities or vehicle damage in accident”. But in this case it is undisputed.
(ii) Jammu & Kashmir SCDRC, Jammu between Lt Col. V.K.Rampal Vrs. New Insurance Company reported in 2009(2) CPR 185 wherein it has been held that, “when two interpretation are possible to a contract of insurance, it is settled position of law that whatever favours the consumers that has to be adopted”. In the present case this point of fact is also not matching.
(iii) Between New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Dr. M.M Krishna reported in 2011 NCJ-445(NC) wherein Hon’ble National CDRC has been held that, “Surveyor’s Report is an important document unless it is arbitrary or biased”. And
(iv) Hon’ble National CDRC, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Mr. Virender and Mr. Nirender reported in 2011 NCJ-469(NC) wherein it has been held that, “Though Surveyors Report is pre-requisite for settlement of claim but is not the final words”. For making correction in the Surveyors Report adequate proof is required which can reflect the error(s) or any technical issues in the calculating / assessing the proper loss of vehicle, which is absent in the materials of the complainant.
So also the O.Ps. filed Judgments such as (a) between United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal reported in 2004 -8 SCC-644 MANU / SC/ 0803 / 2004 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, “It is the owner – complainant has to prove that the Survey Report is perverse and is not in accordance with the terms and contract of insurance, failing which there cannot be any re-appreciation of the Survey Report, terms of contract and the amount settled by the insurance company”. And
(b) Between United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd.& Ors. Reported in (2000) 10 SCC-19- MANU / SC/ 1862 / 1999.
In deciding the matter, following issues are framed;-
- Whether the case is a time barred or not?
- Whether the claim has been settled or not?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief or not?
The very first issue has been cleared as the incident of accident occurred on dtd.06.04.2013 i.e. within the period of validity of insurance but the Complaint Case has been filed on dtd. 21.01.2016 which does not satisfies both the sub-sections (1) and (2) of U/S-24A of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, as such it is a time barred case. However this Hon’ble Forum has admitted the case for just decision of the case initially, but the complainant has failed later also to satisfy the Forum on condonation of delay taken place.
While deciding on the second issue, it has been answered through the complaint petition itself that the claim has already been settled between the parties in Rs.57,000/- only in early date as per the Surveyor’s Report without mentioning any protest thereon by the complainant except filing of the case and that of also after expiry of limitation period.
So far as the third issue is concerned there is no any merit found on the part of complaint petition in any angle as per the above mentioned issues, thus the complainant is not entitled for any relief.
As per the above mentioned observations and analysis this Hon’ble Forum is inclined to dismiss the case with no costs.
Accordingly the case is dispose of.
Order pronounced in the open court today on this the 29th day of June, 2017, copy of this order shall be communicated to the parties as per Rule.
I Agree,
S.L.Behera, President S.K.Ojha, Member
Dictated and corrected by me.
S.K.Ojha, Member.
