Orissa

Jagatsinghapur

CC/138/2019

Priyatama Muduli - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Manager HDFC Ergo General Insurance co.ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.L.Ray

22 Aug 2022

ORDER

                                                                                            JUDGMENT

 

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking following reliefs;

            “Direct the opposite party to bear all the expenses towards repairing of the vehicle and pay mental agony and litigation cost.”

            Brief facts of the case is that the complainant is the registered owner of the Truck bearing Regd. No.OD-05AF-5755, which was purchased in the year 2018 and insured under the company of opposite party (HDFC ERGO, General Insurance Company Ltd.). On 7^th May, 2019 the said truck met with an accident and sustained damage in the whole of the body.  During the period of accident the vehicle was insured under opposite party bearing insurance No.2315202736169700000 with coverage from 9^th April, 2019 to 8^th April, 2020. After the accident the complainant immediately duly communicated the opposite party by online for insurance claim. The opposite party also immediately taken action on acceptance of the said application and an inspection was made on 10.5.2019 through their surveyor. On 23^rd July, 2019 a letter was issued by opposite party as “No claim” on the ground of necessary permit. The Truck Regd. No.OD-05AF-5755 was issued National Permit bearing No.OR-09/1077/G/2018 which is valid from 23.02.2018 to 22.02.2023 by the Transport department of Orissa to ply throughout India and also got fitness for the period from 17.02.2018 to 16.02.2020. At the time of accident the driver has severe injured he has a valid driving license till transport 30.10.2021 and non-transport 09.3.2034.

            Brief facts of the case of opposite party as follows;

            The cause title of the complaint petition it is clear that the vehicle in question was purchased and insured at Cuttack, registered at Cuttack, repaired at Cuttack and the opposite party against which the case has been filed has no office at Jagatsinghpur, as such the present complaint does not come within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.  The present complaint is also bad for non joinder of necessary parties, since the vehicle in question was hypothecated with HDB Financial Services but the financier who has a financial interest in the vehicle has not been made a necessary party to the present complaint. It is furthermore submitted that the repairer who had allegedly issued the bills based on which the complainant is seeking relief has also not been made party. The complainant has neither during the pendency of the claim before the insurance company, nor at the time of presenting the complaint the complainant had nor produces any proof that she had valid authorization in her permit to ply at the place of accident. The complainant has violated the condition of the policy for which the insurance company rightly acted as per the terms of the contract and the claim of the complainant was repudiated.

            Complainant has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vrs. Pradip Kumar in civil Appeal No.3253/2002 where in the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that for granting the insurance claim the report of surveyor is not last and final word, it may be basis for settlement of claim neither binding in the surveyor nor insured. But the opposite party have raised the maintainability of the case within the jurisdiction of the commission.

            The consumer complaint relates to 2019 and filed U/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in old Act the case should have been filed where the cause of action arose or where the opposite parties resides but in the new Consumer Protection Act, 2019 liberty granted to the complainant to file consumer complaint where the complainant resides or working for gain. The complainant is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission but the present case was filed before 20.7.2020 in the old Act as such this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint on merit. As such this consumer complaint is dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

            While dismissing the consumer complaint we hope and trust that opposite party shall do well giving due regard to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court and settle the grievance of the complainant on non standard basis. With the aforesaid observation and direction the consumer complaint is dismissed. No cost.   

 

            Pronounced in the open Commission on this 22^nd August, 2022.