BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

C.C NO-32/2011

Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Smita Tripathy,Member (W).

Ramkrushna Maharana,aged about 33 years,

S/O- Arkhita Maharana,

R/O- vill- Goudpali,Burla,

P.O/P.S-Burla,Sambalpur.                                                                 …..Complainant

Vrs.

1. Claim Manager(Motor Claims Department),

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd,

One Janpath, 3^rd Floor,Shriya Square,

Kharvela Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001.

2. Branch Manger,

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd,

Policy Serving Office situated at-Plot No-1071/1399,

Unit No-7,Hospital Road, P.O-Modipara,

For the Complainant:-Sri S. Mohanty, Advocate & Associates.

1. For the O.P-1 & 2:-          Sri B.K.Purohit, Advocate & Associates.

DATE OF HEARING : 01.03.2021, DATE OF ORDER : 22.03.2021

SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT:-Brief facts of the case is that the Complainant  has purchased a Sonalika Tractor and Trailer bearing registration no- OR-15-K-4579 and OR-15- K- 4580  on dtd. 06.08.2009 from one Sanjukta Sahu  of Malatigunderpur under Sambalpur District. After the purchase of the above vehicles the Complainant got the ownership transferred ti his own name by the RTO Sambalpur. He also availed Fitness certificate from the concerned RTO and insured with the O.P (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.) under commercial vehicle  of Class-D Category by submitting all relevant documents with the O.P-2. The O.P issued a policy vide no- OG-10-2412-1811-00000252 valid from 10.01.2010 to 10.01.2011. The above said vehicle met with an accident on  dtd.17.03.2010 at about 1.03 p.m.  near Choudhury Chawk ,at Sindurpank in Sambalpur. The matter was reported to the Police and a case vide Sadar P.S Case no- 24, dtd 17.03.2010 corresponding to C.T No-452/2010 u/s-279/337 IPC. Thereafter the Complainant informed the matter to the O.P-2 and lodged a claim enclosing all the relevant documents therein on dtd. 17.03.2010 vide OD Claim No- OC-10-2403-1011-00000107 for the repair of the damaged vehicle.  The vehicle was shifted to one Pratyush Motors who was the authorised service centre of Sonalika at Sambalpur. The vehicle was surveyed by the Surveyor and estimate was prepared. Then the vehicle was shifted to Mohan Tractor Garage at Sambalpur under the supervision of Pratyush Motors because due to shortage of staff Pratyush Motor was not functioning.  After several visits ultimately the repair work was completed on 29.04.2010 but the claim was not settled.  The owner of the Garage pressurized the Complainant to pay the charges and remove the vehicle from his garage for which the Complainant had to pay the repairing charges of Rs.120383.50 in cash and removed the vehicle from the garage. On dtd. 15.07.2010 the Complainant visited the office of the O.P-2  and cloud know that the O.P-1 had sent two letters to him for the settlement of the claim but they were returned undelivered to the O.P-1. The copies of the letters were supplied to the Complainant on request were he could informed that the damaged claim of the Complainant has been rejected on the ground that the  vehicle was plying without valid route permit on the day  of the accident.  The Complainant on dtd. 12.10.2010 wrote a letter to the O.P-1 admitting the fact that the vehicle was plying without route permit and requested the O.P-1 to settle the claim on non-standard basis but theO.P-1 made no response. The Complainant alleges that the O.P-2 has issued an insurance policy knowing it fully well that the vehicle has no route permit. The Complainant has place reliance on some of the judgments of various courts to strengthen its case. He claims that the O.Ps are deficient in providing services even after receiving of insurance premium   amount which put the Complainant to harassment, mental pain and agony and prayed for certain relief.

As per the O.Ps during the currency of the policy the Complainant had informed the incident on dtd. 17.03.2010 and claim form was filed. As the permit copy was not accompanied within the for the Insurance Company wrote a letter on dtd 05.04.2010 to file show cause within 7 days as to why the claim would not be repudiated. Thereafter the claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company as no reply received from the Complainant and communicated to him on dtd. 21.04.2010. But after receiving a letter dtd.15.07.2010 from the Complainant the O.P again informed him to submit response within 07 days failing which the contents of the earlier letter dtd. 21.04.2010 will remain unchanged. As the Insured did not file the permit copy the O.P became bound to repudiate the claim. The Complainant has place reliance on some of the judgments of various courts to strengthen its defiance. Hence the O.Ps has not committed any deficiency in service.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has purchased a Tractor with Trailer and got it Insured from the O.P after payment of premium as consideration.  It is averred that the Complainant has admitted that the vehicle did not have any valid route permit on the particular day of the accident. But he requested the O.Ps to settle the claim on non- standard basis as per the provision of insurance act. But the O.Ps simply denied the request and repudiated the claim on the ground of no valid permit.  Here a question arises ; can the Insurance Company repudiate a claim made by the owner of the vehicle which is duly insured with the company, solely on the ground that the  vehicle was plying without valid permit  which  had nothing to do with the accident ? In the case of ‘Amlendu Sahu Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.”, (2010) 4 SCC 536 case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided that  it has been held that in a case of violation of condition of the policy as to the nature of use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be settled on a non-standard basis. While granting claim on non-standard basis the National Commission set out in its judgment the guidelines issued by the insurance company about settling all such non-standard claims. The said guidelines are set out below:-

Sl No.              Description                                                  Percentage of Settlememt

1                      Under Declaration of                                    Deduct three years Difference in

Description under Declaration                    premium from the amount of claim or deduct 25% of                                         claim amount, whichever is higher. 

2.                     Overloading of Vehicles                              Pay claims  not exceeding 74% of                                            beyond Licensing                                          admissible Claim 

                         carrying capacity.

 3.                     Any other breach of warranty/                  Pay up to 75% of the Claim

                       Condition of policy including                                                   

                          Limitation as to use.

From a perusal of the aforesaid guidelines it is clear that one of the cases where 75% claim of the admissible claim was settled was where condition of policy including limitation as to use was breached. So the O.Ps have committed deficiency in service as well as Unfair Trade Practice to the Complainant by repudiating the claim arbitrarily. Hence we  order as under:-

ORDER

That the Complaint petition is allowed. The O.Ps are jointly and severally directed to settle the claim of the Complainant on Non- Standard basis and disburse the settled amount  against the damaged vehicle. Further the O.Ps are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of  Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand) by way of compensation to the Complainant for causing him mental, physical and financial loss and agony and Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) as litigation costs. This amount shall be paid by the OPs to the Complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the OPs shall pay interest @ 9% per annum on this amount from the date of filing the complaint, i.e., 25.03.2011 till its realisation."

Order pronounced in the open Court today i.e, on 22^nd day of March 2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.

Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

I agree,

-sd/-(22.03.2021)                                                                                                       -sd/-(22.03.2021)

        Smt. S.Tripathy                                                                                                         Sri. D.K. Mahapatra

        MEMBER.(W)                                                                             PRESIDENT

                                                                                   Dictated and Corrected

                                                                             by me.

                                                                        -sd/-(22.03.2021)

                                                                                                Sri. D.K. Mahapatra

                                                                         PRESIDENT