Orissa

Cuttak

CC/130/2021

Satya Narayan Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

K Panigrahi

24 Nov 2022

ORDER

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

C.C.No.130/2021

 

Satya Narayan Dash,

S/O:Late Gopinath Dash,

At/PO:Sector-6,Qtr. No.4/H/112,Rourkela,

Near Laxmi Market,Dist:Sundergarh(Odisha),

PIN-769002.

At present C/O: Sridhar Pradhan,Kunja Bihar Lane,

Nuapada,Cuttack.                                                                       ... Complainant.

 

                                   Vrs.

1.      HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD.

3^rdFloor,OSL Tower-II,Badambadi,Cuttack.

 

2.      HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD.,

1^stFloor,HDFC House,165/166,Backbe,

Reclamation. Parag Marg,

Church Gate,Mumbai..

 

3.       Narayani Motors Ppvt. Ltd.,

                            217 Cuttack-Puri Road,Jharpada,

                            Bhubaneswar-751006.                                                             ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                   Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:      23.08.2021

Date of Order:    24.11.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr. K.Panigrahi,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps              :          Mr. R.K.Pati,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                        

Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased one Baleno Zeta Car bearing Regd. No.OD-14V-9093 from NEXA Civil Town,PR Plaza opp., Maruti Showroom PanpayeeRoad,Rourkela for a consideration sum of Rs.6,88,802/-.  The said vehicle was insured with O.Ps no.1 & 2 which was effective from 22.10.20 to 21.10.21.  The said vehicle while plying at Pipili area on 14.2.21 had met with an accident with a Scooty bearing Regd. No.OD-02-X-0690 and was damaged for which FIR was lodged.  The vehicle of the complainant was seized by the police since because the scooty driver had died due to the accident.  The matter was reported to the Insurance Company of O.Ps no.1 & 2, the seized vehicle was released vide order of the competent court of Pipili dt.24.2.21 on Jima and thereafter O.P no.1 had deputed a surveyor for survey and assessment of the claim of the complainant.  The damaged vehicle was shifted to Narayani Motors Pvt. Ltd. by the complainant who had to pay a sum of Rs.2700/- for the same.    The estimated cost of the damaged vehicle of the complainant was of Rs.1,10,000/-.  The complainant had to bear the cost of the repairing charges as provided to him by O.P no.3 to the tune of Rs.1,20,800/-.  According to him, he had not violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and thus by filing this case before this Commission he has claimed from the O.Ps no.1 & 2 a sum of Rs.1,20,800/- as spent by him together with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of claim and also for a compensation from them to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and further a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards cost of his litigation.

            He has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Out of the three O.Ps as arrayed in this case, O.P no.3 having not contested this case has been set exparte vide order dt.13.4.22.  However O.Ps no.1 & 2 have contested this case and have filed their  joint written version.   According to them the case of the complainant is not maintainable, bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties which is liable to be dismissed.  The vehicle of the complainant being under hypothecation agreement with Union Bank of India, the said bank is not made a party by the complainant here in this case.  Ofcourse they admit about the insurance policy and about the intimation about the accident to them.  After getting the claim registered, the O.Ps no.1 & 2 had required certain documents for which they had intimated about the same to the complainant vide their letters dt.30.3.21,6.5.21 and 15.7.21.  Since because the documents were not provided inspite of several letters, the claim could not be settled.  In this connection they have relied upon the case of Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vrs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and another, 2011 CTJ 11(Supreme Court( (CP).  Thus they have claimed to have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant which could notbe settled due to want of the documents. 

          They have annexed copies of several documents in order to prove their stand.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments of the complaint petition and the contents of written version, 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 the O.Ps& if there was practice of any unfair trade by the O.Ps ?

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

Issue no.ii.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii being the pertinent one is taken up first to be considered here in this case.

          Admittedly, the complainant had insured his vehicle and when the insurance was in force, the said vehicle of the complainant had met with an accident at Pipili area for which the scooty driver had expired and there was damage caused to the vehicle of the complainant.  There was a police case to that effect, the complainant had claimed for settlement of insurance after his vehicle was released by the learned JMFC,Pipili.  The O.Ps had deputed a surveyor for assessing the damage but according to the O.Ps no.1 & 2, when the complainant could not provide the documents as desired by them, they had repudiated the claim of the complainant which they were unable to settle.  In this connection they have relied upon a decision which they have cited.  The plea of the O.Ps is that due to want of required documents, which were not being provided to them by the complainants, they had to close the claim of the complainants.  In this score it would be worthwhile to quote the pertinent decision of our Apex Court settled in the case of Mr. Gurmel Singh Vrs. Branch Mananger,National Insurance Co. Ltd. wherein their lordships have held that “Insurance companies refusing claim on flimsy grounds and/or technical grounds- While settling the claims, the insurance company should not be too technical and ask for the documents, which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control”.  Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the insured claimant can only produce the documents those which are in his/her possession and he/she cannot be compelled for the documents those which are not in his possession.  Thus, keeping in mind the valuable decision of our Hon’ble Apex Court, the claim for the death certificate of the Scooty driver, delay intimation letter, final charge sheet, post-mortem report, inquest report, MVI report as made by the O.Ps. no.1 & 2 as per point no.11 of their written version which has been urged not to have been complied with by the insured/claimant who is  the complainant of this case and for which they had repudiated the claim clearly signifies that there was deficiency in their service and that they had indeed practised  unfair trade.

Issues no.i& iii.

            From the discussions as made above, it can wiselybe said here in this case that the case of the complainant is maintainable and accordingly the complainant is entitled to  the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

ORDER

Case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps no.1 & 2 and exparte against O.P no.3.  The O.Ps no.1 & 2 who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The said O.Ps no.1 & 2 are thus directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.1,20,800/- that which he had paid for repairing his damaged vehicle with effect from 30.3.2021 alongwith interest thereon @ 12% per annum till the total amount is quantified.  The O.Ps no.1 & 2 are further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant and to bear his litigation cost to the tune of Rs.30,000/-.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 24^th   day of   November,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                    Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                             Member