SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-

                           Deficiency in service in respect of non-settlement of Insurance claim against accident faced vehicle are the allegations arrayed against the Opp.Parties.

2.                  Complaint,  in brief reveals that, Complainant’s father is a registered owner of a two wheeler Activa-3G Scooter bearing its registration No. OD-02AA-1215 and complainant was having a valid driving license in her name granted by R.T.A, Kendrapara. On 18.11.2016, when the Complainant was going to her College, the said vehicle faced an accident near Tulasi Woman’s College, Kendrapara. The accident faced vehicle was insured with Op-Insurance Company and during the material time of accident the vehicle was under cover of the Insurance. It is also stated that in order to repair the vehicle Complainant has spent a good money, and inspite of repeated requests the Op-Insurance Company does not settle the claim of the Complainant and plays hide and seek with the Complainant, for which the Complaint before the Forum. The cause of action of the dispute arose on different dates lastly on dtd. 13/4/2017, when the Op-Insurance Company paid a deafear to the grievance of the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant is filed with prayer that, a direction may be issued to the Op-Insurance Company for settlement of claim and award of compensation in favour of the Complainant on allegation of deficiency in service by the Ops.

3.               Being noticed Op- Insurance Company appeared through their Ld. Counsel and field joint written statement into the dispute challenging the maintainability of the Complaint on grounds of ‘territorial Jurisdiction’  and on grounds of definition of ‘consumer’ as per the provisions of C.P.Act,1986 the Complainant can’t be treated as a ‘consumer’ as the vehicle is registered in the name of the father of the Complainant on these grounds the claim of the complainant is repudiated (Annexure A& B). It is averred that, Op-Insurance Company issued a two wheeler Policy bearing No. 3005/2011038597/00/00000001517 of Activa Scooter bearing Regd. No. OD-02-AA-1215 and the Insurance of the vehicle was valid from dt. 4/12/2015 to 3/12/2016. It is also averred that, on receipt of intimation of  accident, Op- Company deputed a surveyor namely ER. M.R. Mohanty, who assessed the loss of the vehicle to the tune of Rs. 4600/-. (The surveyors report is annexed as Annexure-D). Ops in their para-wise reply also deny the allegations of the Complainant and seek dismissal of the complainant with cost.

4.                Heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Complainant and case of Op-Insurance Company on merit, perused the Annexures filed by Op- Insurance Company. The admitted facts of the case are that one Jahnabi Jena, having a valid driving license granted by the authorities, Complainant of the present dispute, while driving a two wheeler, Activa Scooter bearing Regd. No. OD-02-AA-1215 faced an accident, which caused damaged to the vehicle near Tulasi Woman’s College, Kendrapara on dt. 18.11.2016. It is also admitted that, the said vehicle was insured with Op- Insurance Company and at the material time of accident the Policy was inforce. It is equally clear from the written statement of Ops and report of the surveyor-cum-loss assessor (Annexure-D) that, the loss/damage of the vehicle assessed to the tune of Rs. 4600/- deducting the salvage and other charges.

                   In the written statement, Op- Insurance Company raised to two questions to justify the republication of claim (Annexure,A&B). First the Complainant namely Jahnabi Jena can’t be treated as a ‘consumer’ as per consumer protection Act, as the vehicle in question is Registered in the name of Complainant’s father Dillip Kumar Jena along with question of territorial jurisdiction. The second point raised by the Op-Insurance Company that, in the claim form the name of the driver is mentioned a ‘Jahnabi Jena’, but in claim intimation the drivers name is mentioned as ‘Dillip Kumar Jena’. Considering the documents and objection of Op-Insurance Company, It is clear that daughter of the Policy holder having a valid driving license,(attested photocopy of the driving license of Complainant Jahnabi Jena filed into the dispute) to ply the two wheeler which faced the accident on dt. 18/11/2016. As Complainant is a ‘beneficiary’ of service availed by his father Policy-holder namely Dillip Kumar Jena and was driving the vehicle with an effective driving license, U/S 2(d) (ii) of C.P.Act, 1986. The Complainant is a ‘consumer’ and has every legal right under the Act to be treated as a ‘Complainant’ under the definition of ‘consumer’. On question of territorial jurisdiction, admittedly  no office is situated under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. U/S 11(c)of C.P.Act, 1986 provides that, if a cause of action wholly, or inpart arose within the territorial jurisdiction the complaint is maintainable before the Forum. In the instant dispute, the vehicle in question is registered under R.T.A, Kendrapara, the vehicle also faced the accident and the loss of the vehicle was assessed by the approved surveyor at ‘Shree Sai Motors’, Marshaghai also falls within the local limits of this Forum. Hence, it is safely concluded that a part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum and Complaint is maintainable U/S 11(c) of C.P.Act, 1986. On the second point of the objection we, verified the claim intimation Form and claim Form (Annexure A&B), according to us it is a minor discrepancies in the time of filling up Annexure A & B and both the annexures lacks the name of claimant/informant. The crux of dispute between the parties is no way altered by misleading or intentional information to violate the terms and conditions of the Policy. In addition to this, it is also clear from the surveyors report (Annexure-D) that the damage has been caused to the insured vehicle by the accident and a loss to the tune of Rs. 4600/- is assessed as repairing cost of the vehicle. We feel that, as per the surveyors report the assessed amount is a pity one same is to be awarded without hammering on technicalities of settlement of claim and taking into the account of the minor discrepancies, we do not award any cost and compensation on favour of the Complainant, and it will be proper and justified if the Op-Company released the assessed loss amount of the vehicle in favour of the Policy holder. Though, the Complainant is a beneficiary of the Insurance Service, but the settlement  of claim amount can’t be released in her favour as the registered owner of the vehicle is her father Policy holder, Dillip Kumar Jena and the settlement of claim amount should be released in favour of her father, Dillip Kumar Jena.

                     Having observations reflected above, it is directed that OP- Insurance Company shall release an amount of Rs. 4600/- in favour of Policy holder, Dillip Kumar Jena, the Complainant’s father within one month of receipt of this order, failing which action will be initiated against Op-Insurance Company as per the provisions of C.P.Act, 1986.

                            Complaint is allowed in part without cost.

                Pronounced in the open Court, this the 23rd day of April,2018.

               I, agree.                   I, agree.

                 Sd/-                        Sd/-                       Sd/- 

            MEMBER                MEMBER              PRESIDENT