Orissa

Cuttak

CC/40/2020

Sarada Prasad Jena - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M L Das

25 Aug 2022

ORDER

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

                                                                C.C.No.40/2020

                Sarada Prasad Jena,

               S/O:Narayan Chandra Jena,

               Vill:Barasahi,P.O:Baghuni,

               P.S:Nemalo,Dist:Cuttack.                                                                  ... Complainant.

         

                                                Vrs.

1.        The Branch Manager,

H.D.F.C,ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd.,

At:2^nd Floor,OSL Tower,

P.S:Badambadi,Dist:Cuttack.

 

2.         The Manager,

M/s. Durga Auto Center,

At:Dolamundai,Near Axis Bank,

P.S:Badambadi,Dist:Cuttack....Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    19.5.2020

Date of Order:  25.08.2022

 

For the complainant:            Ms. M.L.Das,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P. No.1.    :                   None.

For the O.P No.2       :            Mr. R.Pati,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                                 

            Case of the complainant in short is that he is the owner of one Activa two wheeler scooter having Regd. No.OD-05P-8942 which was insured by him having policy No.2312100490892900000 dt.10.9.19 and was valid upto 9.9.2020.  On 18.11.19 one Autoricksha had dashed the said Activa two wheeler scooter of the complainant while he was travelling in the same, as a result of which the complainant became unconscious and was admitted to the hospital.  His Activa two wheeler scooter was damaged for which he went to O.P No.2 on 20.11.19 in order to get his claim.  He had putforth his claim before the insurer/O.P No.1 who had assured to deliver his vehicle to him within 15 days but when no action was initiated and no cooperation was extended from the O.Ps, the complainant has filed this case claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from O.P No.1 towards compensation and loss as incurred by him together with a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards his mental agony.

            The complainant has filed Xerox copies of certain documents in order to prove his case.

2.         Out of the two O.Ps as arrayed in this case, O.P No.2 having not contested this case has been set exparte but O.P No.1 however has contested this case and has filed his written version.  According to the written version of O.P No.1, the case of the complainant being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed since because the claim of the complainant was settled after receipt of seizure voucher and the money has been paid to the workshop.  O.P No.1 admits about the policy bearing No. No.2312100490892900000 in respect of the vehicle of the complainant bearing Regd. No. No.OD-05P-8942 which was valid from 10.9.19 to 9.9.2020 midnight.  The O.P No.1 also admits about the accident of the said vehicle on 18.11.19 on the road being dashed by one Autorickshaw and about the damages incurred to the vehicle.  According to O.P No.1, the surveyor Mr. Dipankar Ghose was deputed to perform local inspection of the damaged vehicle and after getting the survey report dt.26.1.20 the assessed amount of Rs.10,000.63p was paid.  His claim was thus settled on 27.1.2020 and the complainant had signed the discharge voucher without any objection.  The money was released in favour of O.P No.2 on 29.1.20 through NEFT.  Thus, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint petition as filed being devoid of any merit with exemplary cost.

            O.P No.1 has also filed certain Xerox copies of documents in order to prove his stand alongwith a citation of the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and others Vrs. Ranjit Kumar Mishra as published in IV(2019) CPJ 320(NC).

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and that in the written version of O.P No.1, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

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

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

Issue No.ii

            Out of the three issues, issue no.2 being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

            Admittedly, the Activa two wheeler vehicle which belonged to the complainant and was under the coverage of insurance policy had met with an accident on the road on 18.11.19.  The O.P No.2 has not disputed about the complainant’s approach on 20.11.19 for settling his claim as per the insurance policy towards the damages of his vehicle.  On perusal of the documents as available in the case record it is noticed that as per Annexure-B, the final survey report,the vehicle met with an accident on 18.11.19 at about 10.15 A.M at Khannagar,Cuttack but the vehicle was surveyed by the surveyor Dipankar Ghose and on 26.1.20 he had submitted his report mentioning therein that the assessed damage was to the extent of Rs.10,000.63p.  When the date of information as regards to the accident  is admittedly to be 20.11.19, i.e., two days after the occurrence, what made the surveyor submitting his report after such a prolonged delay period i.e. on 26.1.20, is not supported with any plausible explanation.  Thus the contention of O.P No.1 that the claim was settled by O.P No.1 was not with promptitude and rather, was done after a prolonged delay.  Hence the pleas that there was no deficiency in service does not hold good here in this case.  Accordingly, this Commission is of a view that there was indeed inordinate delay on the part of O.P No.1 in assessing and settling the claim as made by the complainant here in this case.  Thus there was indeed deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.  Accordingly, this issue is answered against the O.Ps.

Issues No.i & iii

            From the above discussions and when the complainant has mentioned in his complaint petition that he was solely depending on the Activa two wheeler scooter which he had duly insured and well within the insured period, it met with an accident and the matter was resolved after a prolonged delay, the case being filed by him is definitely maintainable and he is ofcourse entitled to a reasonable amount of relief as claimed.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against O.P No.1 and exparte against O.P No.2.  Both the O.Ps are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  However, O.P No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards his mental agony, harassment and towards  litigation expenses as incurred by him.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 25^th day of August,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                                                                               Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                             Member.