Manabhanjan Das filed a consumer case on 21 Dec 2016 against Claims Manager,Cholamandalam M S General Insurance Company in the Cuttak Consumer Court. The case no is CC/11/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 27 Dec 2016.
Orissa
Cuttak
CC/11/2016
Manabhanjan Das - Complainant(s)
Versus
Claims Manager,Cholamandalam M S General Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)
N P Parida
21 Dec 2016
ORDER
IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.
C.C. No.11/2016
Manabhanjan Das,
Gopabandhu Nagar,P.S:Chauliaganj,
Dist:Cuttack. … Complainant.
Vrs.
Claims Manager,Cholamandalam
M.S General Insurance Company Ltd.,,
At:Regional Office,Plot No.45/46,
2nd floor,Hotel Basera,Ashok Nagar
Janapath,Bhubaneswar
Proprietor,Rashmi Motors,
Authorised Main Dealer,
Ashok Leyland Light Vehicle,
N.H-5, Manguli,Cuttack.… ProformaOpp. Party.
Present: Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.
Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).
Date of filing: 29.01.2016
Date of Order: 21.12.2016.
For the complainant: Sri R.P.Parida,Adv. & Associates.
For the Opp.Party No.1: Sri G.P.Dutta,Adv. & Associates.
For the O.P No.2 : Sri B.K.Samal,Service Manager.
Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.
The complainant has filed this case alleging therein deficiency in service against the O.Ps and seeking appropriate relief as prayed for.
Case of the complainant in nutshell is that he is the owner of a vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-05H-5510 and had obtained an insurance policy no.3379/010 41179/000/01 from the O.P.1 on 21.5.2015 for one year. On 21.9.15 while that vehicle was standing in the left side of the road near Blue Lagoon Hotel under Purighat Police Station,Cuttack a car bearing No.OR-02AA-1790 dashed against it from the back side, as a result the said vehicle of the complainant moved forward and got dashed against the back side of a truck standing in front of it. The vehicle of the complainant was substantially damaged. The complainant reported the matter at Purighat Police Station on 22.9.15 and then intimated this fact to O.P.1. Annex-1 & 2 are respectively the copies of F.I.R and the insurance certificate obtained by the complainant.
It is stated that after getting the complaint, the O.P No.1 advised the complainant to take the damaged truck to O.P.2 for repair and also deputed a surveyor to assess the loss. The vehicle was repaired in due course and a retail invoice amounting to Rs.29,120/- was submitted by the O.P.2 to the complainant. It is further stated that the O.P.1 assured the complainant for reimbursement of the above dues through insurance coverage and accordingly the complainant made necessary payments to the O.P.2. Annex-3 is the copy of the retail invoice given by O.P.2 to the complainant.
Thereafter the complainant made insurance claim for the above amount with the O.P.1 but the latter vide his letter dt.21.12.15 repudiated the claim of the complainant treating the same as ‘No claim’ for non-supply of the required documents within the stipulated time. The copy of the said letter dt.21.12.15 of the O.P.1 has been marked as Annex-4.
It is further stated that the O.P.1 is very much negligent in his duty and repudiation of his claim of insurance is unjust, improper and illegal. It is tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Accordingly he has prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay him Rs.29,120/- towards repair charges, Rs.25,000/- towards harassment caused to him, all total Rs.54,120/- in the interest of justice.
The O.P.1 has been set exparte. The O.P. No.2 has filed the written version of his case stating that he is the Service Manager of the Rashmi Motors which is a workshop for repair of the vehicles. Since he has already received the repair charges as per retail invoice vide Annex-3 he has nothing to submit anything in this case. The complainant has also added O.P.2 as proforma O.P.2.
We have heard the learned counsel of the complainant at length and gone through the documents filed on his behalf. The main grievance of the complainant is the repudiation of his insurance claim by the O.P.1 mainly on the ground that his claim was treated as ‘No claim’ by the latter for non-supply of required documents to him within the stipulated time. To this effect, the complainant has filed the letter dt.21.12.2015 issued by O.P.1 to him for repudiation of his claim. We have carefully gone through the said letter but no where it reveals that the claim of the complainant was repudiated for whatever reason. Rather it is revealed from Annex-4 that the complainant was requested by O.P.1 to provide some required documents as detailed in his earlier letter dt.9.12.15 expeditiously for finalization of loss. It has been specifically stated in the said letter that insurance claim cannot be kept open for indefinite period of time and in the event of the failure of the complainant to produce the above documents within the stipulated time, the O.P.1 shall be constrained to treat his claim as ‘No claim’. There is no other document filed by the complainant on this point.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents relied upon by the complainant, it is held that he has failed miserably to establish his own case to the satisfaction of this authority that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.1. Hence ordered;
ORDER
The prayer of the complainant is found devoid of merit and stands dismissed on contest against O.P.2 and exparte against O.P.1.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble President in the Open Court on this the 27th day of December, 2016 under the seal and signature of this Forum.
( Sri D.C.Barik )
President.
(Sri B.N.Tripathy )
Member.
(Smt. Sarmistha Nath)
Member(W)
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.