Date of filing:- 06/07/2022.
Date of Order:-27/05/2024.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B A R G A R H (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 19 of 2022.
Sabita Panigrahi, aged about 56(fifty six) years W/o Himansu Kumar Naik, resident of Ashirabad Villa House No.8(eight) Bargarh, Po/Dist. Bargarh.
..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
HDFC ERGO GIC Ltd through its Legal Manager, At/Po. 3rd Floor hold Pal Regency Pvt. Ltd. J F Jayadev Bihar, Bhubaneswar-751022.
...... ..... ......Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri S.K.Dash, Advocate with associates.
For the Opposite Party :- Sri A.K.Dash, Advocate with associates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Jigeesha Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Smt. Anju Agrawal ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.27/05/2024. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President:-
1) The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is the owner of the vehicle (TATA Safari) bearing it Regd. No. OD-02-E-0048 which was insured by the Opposite Party vide Policy No. 2311203236342200000 valid from 13-01-2020 to 12-01-2021 with an IDV of ₹5,50,000/-(Rupees five lakh fifty thousand)only. On 12-03-2020 when relatives of the Complainant were traveling to Rayagada from Tikiri by that time on state high way at Punjiguma Chowk the vehicle met with an accident and got total damaged. The incident was reported to Tikiri Police Station soon after the occurrence and got it registered vide GD No. 05 Dt. 13-03-2020. The Complainant raised a claim of ₹8,80,000/-(Rupees eight lakh eighty thousand)only against the loss estimated by the service agency Trupti Tata Motors, Bhubaneswar. On 12-10-2020 an intimation of rejection was received from the Opposite Party with the reason that the insured used the car as a commercial purpose however the car is private number. The Complainant is unable to use the vehicle as the vehicle in a total damaged condition. The conduct of the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the Complainant filed this case before this Commission.
2) The case of the Opposite Party is that the Opposite Party filed its version. The Opposite Party admitted that the Opposite Party had issued a private car package policy bearing No. 2311 2032 3634 2200 000 for Safari Storme vehicle bearing No. OD-02-E-0048 covering interest of Complainant for the period from 13th January 2020 to 12th January 2021. On 14th March after delay of 2(two) days the Opposite Party received the intimation about the accidental damage of the vehicle of the Complainant. Despite the delay intimation the Opposite Party had engaged an investigator with immediate effect. Further the Opposite Party had also engaged a surveyor to inspect the damaged vehicle. The Complainant is not entitled to any compensation as the Complainant used the private vehicle for commercial purposes which is a gross violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance contract. There is no any deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party.
3) Perused the complaint petition, version and documents filed by the Parties and following issues are framed :-
Issues
- Whether the Opposite Party is deficient in service ?
- Whether Complainant is entitled to get relief ?
Issue No.1(one)
4) The policy is admitted and the accident was occurred during the currency of the policy. But the Opposite Party repudiated the claim on the ground that Complainant used the vehicle for commercial purpose. In Horsolia Motor Case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already decided that a person who takes the policy of insurance to cover the envisaged risk for indemnification of actual loss suffered is not ordinary intended to generate frofits and accordingly held that the case is maintainable. In this present case the Opposite Party is taking plea in order to avoid payment. Again the Opposite Party submitted in its version that surveyor has assessed the loss. But the Opposite Party did not file survey report which is also a deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. Non-settlement of claim of the Complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The issue is answered accordingly.
Issue No.2(two)
5) For deficiency in service of the Opposite Party the Complainant is entitled to get relief. The Complainant filed estimate of ₹8,88,767.80/-(Rupees eight lakh eighty eight thousand seven hundred sixty seven and eighty paise)only of Trupti Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.. But the IDV of the vehicle is ₹5,50,000/-(Rupees five lakh fifty thousand)only. We allow the IDV of the vehicle. The issue is answered accordingly.
As per supra discussion the following order passed:-
O R D E R
6) The Complaint is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is directed to pay ₹ 5,50,000/- (Rupees five lakh fifty thousand)only to the Complainant within one month from the date of this order. Further the Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs. 40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only for deficiency in service and Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only for litigation expenses to the Complainant, failing which, the entire awarded amount shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till realization.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27th day of May 2024.
Supply free copies to the Parties.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, ( Smt.Jigeesha Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
(Smt. Anju Agrawal)
M e m b e r(w).
