Bihar

Gaya

CC/24/2016

Smt. Sharda Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Kamlessh Kumar

28 Nov 2018

ORDER

In the court of District Consumer Forum, Gaya

Consumer Complainant Case No. – 24 of 2016

Shardha Sharma..... Complainant

                               V/s
Divisional manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others.... Opposite Parties.

Present:
 1. Shri Ramesh Chandra Singh..... President

 2. Syed Mohtashim Akhtar....Male Member

 3. Smt. Sunita Kumari ....Female Member

Dated:- 06.12.2018                Shri Ramesh Chandra Singh..... President.

Order

The instant cases in filed by the complainant Shrimati Sarda Sharma against the opposite parties  for deficiency in service as the opposite parties have not settled the claim and it was deficiency in service on their part and claimed total ₹12,

                                         (2)             Case No.-24-2016

                    2. In brief the case of the complainant is that vehicle number BR02F/ and valid since 2^nd July st July as a result  altogether 19 persons died and 32 persons got injured. The information regarding to the said accident was immediately given to the opposite party and then on 27th June th April

                             (3)                 Case No.-24-2016

number / explanation was given to the opposite party on 27th January

There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

                                   3. On behalf of opposite party number 1 written statement has been filed in which it has been stated that the complaint is not maintainable. The opposite party as repudiated the claim of the complainant on a specific ground of overloading which is also a violation of policy condition. It is admitted fact that the complainant had obtained a policy from the

                             (4)                  Case No.-24-2016

opposite party Oriental Insurance Company Limited for is vehicle as alleged for the specific date of validity for commercial purpose. On this sole ground the opposite parties have repudiated the claim of the complainant.

                             4. In support of their respective cases both parties have filed their evidences on affidavits and relevant documents.

                          5. In this case all the facts are admitted except the point of overloading.

                          6. There is no any documents on the case record filed by any party is to show overloading on the alleged bus in accident.
It is a version of the complainant that only 29 passengers were boarding in the bus at the time of accident but it appears that as per the case record and on the admission of both parties that total 51 persons where got either casualty or injury but admittedly 19 persons have been died and 32  persons were injured. Hence, it is clear that there is overloading on the bus as a alleged in the case.

                             (5)                 Case No.-24-2016

                          7. We, therefore, after perusal of the case record, evidences on affidavit of both parties and documents on case record and submissions of both parties we came on the conclusion that there is overloading on the alleged bus but in this situation the opposite parties should not have repudiate the claim but settle the claim on non standard basis which is not done by the opposite party voluntarily causing the mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

                           8. Therefore, we direct the opposite party to pay 75% of insured value  ₹

    Dictated and corrected

Female Member          Male Member                    President

Sunita Kumari                  Syed Mohtashim Akhtar        Ramesh Chandra Singh