DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C.NO. 01 OF 2022
Date of Filing: 29.03.2022
Date of Order: 08.05.2023
Smt. Sunanda Panda,W/o Satyanarayan Panda,
At/PO - Masterpada, Phulbani
District-Kandhamal …………………….. Complainant.
Versus.
- IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Registered Office-IFFCO Sadan C1,
District-Centre Saket, New Delhi-110017
2. Branch Manager,
IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd.,
At-Sri Sai Complex, Main Road,
PO- Gandhi Nagar, Berhampur
District-Ganjam, PIN-760001 …………………….. Opp. Parties.
Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra - President.
Sri Sudhakar Senapothi - Member.
For the Complainant : Herself.
For O.P. No. : Mr.V.V.Ramdas, Advocate
JUDGEMENT
Mr. Sudhakar Senapothi, Member.
Complainant Sunanda Panda has filed this case U/s 35 of the C.P. Act-2019 alleging deficiency of Service on the part of Opposite Parties for not paying her insurance claims in spite of repeated approaches and praying therein for direction to the Opposition Parties to pay her Insurance claim with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of claim and pay cost and compensation of Rs. 1, 00,000/-.
- Brief fact leading to the case is that complainant Sunanda Panda is the owner of one truck bearing Registration No. OD-02AA-7564 which she had purchased for earning her livelihood by way of self-employment. The vehicle was insured at IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. During the force of the policy, the vehicle met with an accident and the complainant lodged a claim before the Opposition Parties and as they did not pay her insurance claim without any just and genuine reasons, she approached this commission for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint petition as discussed in the preceding paragraphs.
- After receipt of notice, the Opposite Parties appeared and filed their written statements. In their written statements, the Opposition Parties stated that the complainant was requested vide their letter dtd. 24.04.2019 and final letter dtd. 02.07.2019. The complainant did not submit the documents for which the claim was closed and the Opposition Parties were unable to process their claims due to non-availability of documents such as Route Permit, FIR, Zimanama and seizure list and one cancelled Cheque or pass Book with payee name, account No. and IFSC Code. As permit is a valid document and no vehicle can ply without a permit, it was not possible on the part of the Opposition Parties to allow the claim and therefore, the complainant has no cause of action and therefore, the case may be dismissed with costs.
- It is an admitted fact that the complainant has not deposited the permit of the vehicle. A report was sought for from RTO, Bhubaneswar wherein, he has intimated that the permit was not valid on the date of accident. So, the sole question relating to the case is whether the insurance claim of the complainant can be allowed without a valid permit?
- It is certain principle of law that in the event of an accident, if the route permit is invalid, the claim is to be allowed on non-standard basis. In the present case, as the permit was not valid, the claims should have been allowed in non-standard basis and hence the order.
O R D E R
The complaint petition is allowed on contest in part. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the insurance claim of the complainant on non-standard basis. In the facts and circumstance of the case, parties are to bear their own cost. The order is to be complied with the 30 days from the date of receipt of order.
Computerized & corrected by me.
I Agree
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this 8th May of 2023 in the presence of the parties.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
