Orissa

Cuttak

CC/45/2019

Tasimuddin Khan - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Manager,Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

S Azeemuddeen

23 Aug 2022

ORDER

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

                                                                C.C.No.45/2019

Tasimuddin Khan,

S/O:Late Rahimuddin Khan,

Permanent resident of Pathan Sahi,P.O:Nijigada Block

(Nursinghpur),P.S:Narsinghpur,Dist:Cuttack,

Odisha-754032.                      ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.        The General Manager,

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Regd. & Head Office at GE Plaza,Airport Road,

Yerwada,Pune,Maharastra-411006.

 

2.         The Manager,Policy Servicing Office,

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,”One Janapath”,

3^rd Floor,2C,Janapath,Sriya Square,

Kharvela Nagar,Unit-III,Bhubanesdwswar,Dist:Khurda-751001.

 

3.         The Managing Director,Intrepid Pvt. Ltd.Claims,

Plot No.17,Basera Complex Dumduma,Bhubaneswsar,

Dist:Khurda-750019.                                                                  ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    20.04.2019

Date of Order:  23.08.2022

 

For the complainant:            Mr. Sk. Azeemuddeen,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps No.1 & 2 :         Mr. A.A.Khan,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.3:                         None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

            Case of the complainant in nutshell is that he has a vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-05T-7814 which was under the coverage of insurance which he had obtained from the O.Ps of this case.  During the insurance coverage while the vehicle was plying on 4.3.18 at about 1.45 p.m. in between the Rageda & Panchama on the highway, in order to save a cow the vehicle dashed with a Mango tree and had sustained severe damages.  The complainant who was driving the vehicle at that time was thrown out of the said vehicle.  He alongwith the delivery boy Prahallad Mallick had sustained injuries.  The matter was reported by the complainant at Nursinghpur Police Station on 7.3.18 vide P.S. Case No.25/2018.  The complainant when placed his claim before the O.P,Insurer, he was asked to file the necessary documents, but his claim was repudiated by the O.Ps for which the complainant has filed this case claiming the insurance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for repairing his vehicle, he also has demanded a sum of Rs.4,32,000/- from the O.P No.1 i.e, @ Rs.36,000/- per month regarding his loss of income from the date of accident. He also has demanded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation from the O.Ps alongwith his litigation cost of Rs.30,000/-.

            He has filed Xerox copies of R.C.Book of his vehicle, the F.I.R and the connecting police papers regarding the accident, Xerox copy of his driving license, xerox copies of the Aditya Motors,Garrage, his letter as sent to the O.P claiming settlement of the damage and the correspondences thereto with the O.Ps.

2.         On the other hand, the O.Ps No.1 & 2 have conjointly filed their written version who had contested this case but O.P No.3 having not contested this case has been set exparte.

            As per the contention of the O.Ps No.1 & 2 in their written version, the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed with cost.  They admit about the policy obtained for the vehicle of the complainant which was valid during the alleged accident.  They have mentioned about the deputing of investigating agency known as INTREPID CLAIMS for investigating into the matter.  The said organisation had investigated into the matter and had submitted report mentioning therein that it was not the complainant but one Prahallad Mallick who was driving the said vehicle at the material point of time who was having no valid driving license.  Thus, according to the O.Ps, the person who has no valid driving license was driving the vehicle in question which met with an accident and thus it warrants no claim to be settled.  Accordingly, the claim of the complainant was repudiated and thus they have prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant with cost it being not maintainable. 

            They have filed xerox copies of the policy as obtained by the complainant, the terms and conditions thereto, xerox copy of the statement of one Prahallad Mallick who has stated to be driving the alleged vehicle of the complainant during the occurrence when the accident took place.  They have also filed certain other copies of documents in order to prove their stand.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments of the complaint petition, as well as the contentions of the written version of O.Ps No.1 & 2, this Commission is of a view to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

            i.          Whether the case as filed by the complainant is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether there was any deficiency on the part of O.Ps?

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

Issues No.i & ii.

            Issues no.1 & 2 being interconnected and the two pertinent issues in this case are taken up together first for consideration.

            Admittedly, the vehicle of the complainant had met with an accident being dashed with a Mango tree while plying in the National Highway and at that time it was under the insurance coverage that which was obtained by the complainant from the O.Ps.  The dispute in between the parties to this case is that as alleged by the O.Ps one Prahallad Mallick  was driving the vehicle of the complainant during the occurrence and the said  Prahallad Mallick  had no valid driving license but it is the consistent plea of the complainant that he himself was driving his vehicle during the occurrence time when the accident took place and he had a valid driving license then.  The O.Ps had refused the claim of the complainant since because according to them the driver Prahallad Mallick who was driving the vehicle in question at the nick of time had no valid driving license.  The O.Ps through their investigating agency could know that it was Prahallad Mallick and not the complainant; who was driving the vehicle in question which met with an accident in the said day, time and place.  The complainant has filed copies of police papers.  On perusal of those it is noticed that the police had seized the driving license of the complainant together with certain other documents and the police had mentioned in his report after investigating into the matter that it was the complainant who was driving the alleged vehicle in question during the occurrence.  Thus, this statement of the police cannot be left aside, rather it is a credible piece of evidence since because the police after due investigation could know that it was the complainant who was driving the vehicle in question during the occurrence and none else.  While evaluating and weighing the evidence of the O.Ps as per the investigation undertaken by the investigating agency of the O.Ps and that to the investigation made by the police, this Commission definitely gives weightage to the investigation done by the police and it can never be disbelieved after going through the police papers that none else was driving the vehicle in question during the occurrence than the complainant himself.  Accordingly, it is understood that the complainant was driving the said vehicle during the occurrence time who had a valid driving license and thus by repudiating the policy on a flimsy report of one investigating agency is not to be accepted. 

Thus, by refusing the insurance claim as made by the complainant for his damaged vehicle, the O.Ps were infact deficient in their service and by filing the case, the complainant’s case is definitely maintainable.  Accordingly these two issues are answered in favour of the complainant.

Issue No.iii.

            From the above discussions, it can safely be concluded here in this case that the complainant is entitled to get the insurance amount for repairing his damaged vehicle and  also to some other  reasonable extent as demanded by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps No.1 & 2 and exparte against O.P No.3.  The O.Ps are found to be jointly and severally liable in this case.  The O.Ps are therefore directed to settle the claim of the complainant by paying the amount as due and charged, to the garage where the damaged vehicle of the complainant was being repaired within a month of getting this order.  The O.Ps are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards the compensation and litigation cost of the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 23^rd day of August,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                Member.