Orissa

StateCommission

A/30/2020

Senior Branch Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Guru Nanak Service Station - Opp.Party(s)

M/S S.Roy & Assoc.

12 Apr 2023

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
ODISHA, CUTTACK
 
First Appeal No. A/30/2020
( Date of Filing : 26 Feb 2020 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 16/12/2019 in Case No. C.C. 216/2013 of District Khordha)
 
1. Senior Branch Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Mancheswar Branch, 10th Floor, Idco Tower, Janpath, Saheed nagar, Bhubaneswar.
Khurda
Odisha
2. Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Co. Ltd.
DO-II, At- OCHC Building, Block-A, Kharvel Nagar,Bhubaneswar
Khurda
Odisha
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Guru Nanak Service Station
At-Janla, Samntarapur, NH-5, Po- Janla represented through its Proprietor Gurudev Singh Gill.
Khurda
Odisha
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Pramode Kumar Prusty. MEMBER
 HON'BLE MS. Sudhiralaxmi Pattnaik MEMBER
 
PRESENT:M/S S.Roy & Assoc., Advocate for the Appellant 1
 M/S.R. K. Pattnaik & Assoc, Advocate for the Respondent 1
Dated : 12 Apr 2023
Final Order / Judgement

                 Heard learned counsel for  both the sides.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                   The case  of the  complainant, in nutshell  is that  the complainant had  obtained  a money insurance policy from the OP covering the period from 24.09.2011 to 23.09.2012 for sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is alleged inter-alia that on 09.06.2012 at around 9 PM complainant alongwith his son Sandeep Gill were coming from  their petrol pump, carrying a brief case containing Rs.3,20,000/- with other documents. It is alleged that after reaching  the house, while his son received  a telephone call  on his mobile, some persons  were standing outside and took away the money and documents from the  car. Thereafter the matter was reported to the OP. Not only this but also   the complainant informed about the facts  in Khandagiri Police Station on 11.06.2012. Thereafter the claim was made  but  it was repudiated because  the condition of the policy for  taking care of the property in question while it was under transaction has been violated.   Challenging such repudiation, the complaint was filed.

4.            The OP     filed the written version stating that  the policy condition has been violated by the complainant because as per Exclusion clause-V of the terms and conditions of the contract the company shall not  be liable  in respect of “Money carried under contract and affreightment and theft of money from unattended vehicle.” The terms and conditions of the agreement  has been violated. Therefore, they have rejected the claim. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

.5.                       After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum   passed the following order:-

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                                “ The complaint is allowed in part on contest against the Ops with cost. The Ops are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- (Rupees three lakhs twenty thousand) only to the complainant alongwith interest @  8 % per annum from the date of filing of the case i.e. 07.08.2013 till the date of actual payment. The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for mental agony and harassment alongwith further sum of Rs.5,000/-/(Rupees five thousand) only towards cost of litigation. The order is to be complied with by the Ops within a period of one month from the date of communication, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order against the Ops in accordance with law.”

6.                  Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that    learned District Forum has failed to apply judicial mind involved in this case. Since, it is  money insurance policy, it should be guided by the terms and conditions of the policy. He submitted that the police  has been informed when  the occurrence took place. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant had informed the police station on 11.06.2012 and one of the condition of the policy is to inform the police and the insurer immediately after the occurrence and since it is violated, they have repudiated the claim. Besides this  they have kept  the car in open condition  and at that time the  son of the complainant engaged in telephone call outside the car. So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

 

7.               Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that learned District Forum  after applying judicial mind to the fact and law have passed the impugned order in  correct manner  and there  is no latches on their part. He supports the impugned order.

8.               Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties,  perused the DFR and impugned order.

9.                       It is admitted fact that the complainant has to prove  its case and deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  It is admitted fact that during currency of the policy, there was  allegation of theft of Rs.3,20,000/- from the car. The copy of FIR shows that although  it was repossessed on 09.06.2012 but   it was registered on 18.07.2012 at Police Station.  Not only this but also admittedly the information has been given to the OP  insurer 11.06.2012 which is day after the occurrence. Thus after incident occurred, they have immediately informed to the police and the insurer. The delay in registration  of the FIR can not  be ground to  discard  the claim of the complainant.

10.            So far repudiation of the complainant is concerned appellant submitted that  the  money was taken away due to unattended vehicle and at that time the son of the complainant was attending the telephone call by standing near the vehicle and some persons were standing  who took away the money  and by this one can conclude  that there was  sufficient precaution  taken to  keep the money in the car.  Moreover, in this case Exclusion clause-V  appears to have  not been conveyed  to the complainant because no such proof  has been adduced   as per  decision of   the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8249 of 2022 M/s. Texco Marketing Pvt.Ltd-Vrs- Tata AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd. and others Where it is held that  If the exclusion clause is not  conveyed in accordance with law,  the exclusion clause can not be pressed against complainant.

11.            In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that learned District Forum has rightly passed the order  and we having nothing to interfere with it. We found that the interest has been awarded  on the amount of money claimed. In this regard learned counsel for the appellant submitted that interest being in higher side  should be considered. Since, the repudiation of claim has been made without justifiable ground, we can have to award   interest. Therefore, we consider to modify the impugned order by directing the OP to pay Rs.3,20,000/- with 6 % interest  from the date of impugned  order till date of payment made and rest part of the impugned order will remain unaltered. When the interest is awarded there is no question of compensation to be awarded. Thus, OP is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost. All the amount as ordered above would  be paid  within 45 days from the date of  this order, failing which all the impugned order will be revived. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of any merit stands dismissed.

                  Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.  

                   DFR be sent back forthwith.

                           

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Pramode Kumar Prusty.]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MS. Sudhiralaxmi Pattnaik]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.