Orissa

Cuttak

CC/163/2019

Nrusingha Charan Moharana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurence Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B.K. Bastia

22 Jul 2022

ORDER

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

                                                                C.C.No.163/2019

Nrusingha Charan Moharana,

S/O:Late Bhabagrahi Moharana,

At:Sector-10,C.D.A,P.S:C.D.A.,Phase-II,

Dist:Cuttack.                                                                           .. Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

Divisional Manager,

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,

Bajrakabati Road,Cuttack....Opp. Party.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    06.12.2019

Date of Order:  22.07.2022

 

For the complainant:            Mr. B.K.Bastia,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P :                           Mr. S.Roy,Advocate.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                                 

            Case of the complainant as revealed from the complaint petition in short is that the complainant had taken one insurance policy from the O.P vide Policy No.345105/31/2017/5859 in respect of his Maruti Alto Car vide Regd. No.OR-05-AN-3370 with effect from 7.1.17 which was valid till 6.1.18.  The said vehicle of the complainant had met with an accident in the month of February,2017 and was damaged.  The fact was intimated by the complainant to the O.P on 15.2.17 and the vehicle was repaired at Akash Motors,Jagannath Lane,Badambadi,Cuttack.  The complainant had filed his claim before the O.P for settling it as because the estimated damage of his vehicle was of Rs.14,075/- and ultimately the final bill for repairing his vehicle was of Rs.13,575/-.  Inspite of his claim, application and repeated pursuance, his claim was not settled by the O.P, rather, a letter dt.2.1.18 was given to him stating that his claim is not tenable and he was asked to clarify within 2 weeks the grounds of his claim.  The said letter was received by the complainant on 31.1.18 and he had replied accordingly vide his letter dt.8.2.18.  But the O.P on 19.2.18 had repudiated his claim and had issued a letter accordingly.  Ultimately, having no other way out, the complainant has filed this case seeking direction to the O.P for settling his claim together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of claim till the date of final payment.  The complainant has also prayed in his complaint petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment from the O.P.  He has also sought for other reliefs as found fit and proper.

            The complainant has filed xerox copies of documents to establish his case.

2.         On the other hand, the O.P has contested this case and has filed his written version wherein the O.P had taken the plea of maintainability of the complaint petition and has submitted that the petition is barred by law of limitation.  The O.P admits about the issuance of the policy as regards to the Maruti Alto Car of the complainant bearing Regd. No.OR-05-AN-3370 which was valid from 7.1.17 to 6.1.18.  After getting intimation about the accident, the O.P had deputed Er. Kamakhya Sagar Mohanty, the surveyor in order to survey the damage and submit his report.  Accordingly, the said surveyor had submitted his report after spot verification on 28.2.17.  The O.P through his written version has submitted that while switching over the insurance policy from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. to the O.P, the complainant had secured ‘No Claim Bonus’ of 45% which the complainant had suppressed.  So it is the plea of the O.P that by suppressing such fact, the complainant had caused breach in the terms and conditions of the policy and thus accordingly the O.P had repudiated the claim as made by the complainant since because the complainant while taking the policy from the O.P, it should have been with utmost good faith basing on the principles of ‘Uberrimaifidei’ but has not done so for which the claim was repudiated and accordingly the O.P has prayed through his written version to reject the claim of the complainant.  The O.P has also filed xerox copies of documents to support his case.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues to adjudicate the present case in hand.

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether the case of the complainant is barred by law of limitation?

            iii.        Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of O.P?

            iv.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed?

Issue No.3.

            Out of the above issues, issue no.3 being the most pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

            It is admitted fact that the complainant had preferred a policy bearing No.345105/31/2017/5859 for his Maruti Alto Car having Regd. No.OD-05-AN-3370 which was valid from 7.1.17 to 6.1.18.  It is also admitted that the said car of the complainant had met with an accident which was intimated to the O.P on 15.2.17 and as per the Akash Motors Garage, the amount incurred for repairing the vehicle of the complainant was of Rs.13,575/-.  The O.P had deputed a surveyor who had assessed the damage of the Maruti Alto Car of the complainant and had submitted his report on 28.2.17.  The O.P has submitted copy of the said survey report vide Annexure-B and it is noticed that as per the said survey report of the surveyor, the net loss was calculated to be of Rs.9570/-.  But the O.P without settling the claim of the complainant had repudiated it as because, according to him, the complainant had availed ‘No Claim Bonus’ of 45% from the O.P while switching over the insurance policy from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd to the O.P and had thus suppressed the fact.  Be that as it may, the simple plea that the complainant had suppressed the fact would not suffice and that does not enable the insurer be free from any liability. It is because, as per the rules and regulations as envisaged in GR-7 of India Motor Tariff,Clause-F “Not withstanding the above declaration, the insurer allowing the NCB will be obliged to write to the policy issuing office of the previous insurer by recorded delivery calling for conformation of the entitlement and rate of NCB for the particular insured and the previous insurer shall be obliged to provide the information sought within 30 days of the receipt of the letter of enquiry failing which the matter will be treated as breach of Tariff on the part of the previous insurer.  The failure of the insurer granting the NCB to the previous insurer within 21 days after the cover will also constitute a breach of the Tariff.”  Hence by taking the plea of suppression of fact  which is quite ridiculous and by not complying the claim of the complainant as duly made, there was indeed deficiency in service on the part of the O.P towards the complainant and accordingly this issue is answered against the O.P.

Issues No.1 & 2 & 4.

            There is absolutely no evidence as regards to the case being barred by limitation and there is no delay noticed.  When the claim for damage of his Maruti Alto Car was repudiated on a frivolous ground, the complainant has a definite case which is maintainable and he is entitled to the reliefs as claimed.  Accordingly these three issues are answered.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against the OP.  The O.P is directed to settle the claim of the complainant as per the survey report vide Annexure-B, to the tune of Rs.9570/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 28.2.17 till the total amount is quantified.  The O.P is further directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the harassment and mental agony of the complainant and also to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards his litigation cost within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 22^nd day of July,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                                                                                    Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                             Member