Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/68/2015

Sobha Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard Generla Insurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Dusmanta Behera

24 Jun 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No- 68/2015

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

1. Sobha Behera,

W/O-Anirudha Behera

2. Anirudha Behera

S/o- Krushna Chnadra Behera,

Both are R/O-At-Charbhati, Po-Luhapank,

Ps-Rairakhol, Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha-768106.           …..Complainants

 

Vrs.

ICICI-Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Represented Through its Divisional Manager

Office At- 3^rd Floor, Plot No. 29, Anuj Building, Satyanagar,

•  

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant                   :-Sri. Dusmanta Behera, Advocate & associates
2. For the O.P.s                                 :- Sri. B.K.Purohit, Advocate & associates

 

DATE OF HEARING : 19.04.2022, DATE OF JUDGEMENT :24.06.2022

DR. RAMAKANTA SATAPATHY, PRESIDENT,

1. The case of the complainants is that Manas Ranjan Behera , is the son of the complainants. Manas Ranjan purchased a TATA ACE EXBS-III (Colour Arctic White) from Ms.Jalan Automobiles Pvt.Ltd under agreement of hire/hypothecation with Tata Motors Finance Ltd and retail invoice was issued vide Jalan-R-1314-00353-SC on dtd.25.7.2013. The vehicle was insured with the Opp.Party having policy No.3003/TM-00127817/000. The policy was valid for 25.7.2013 to 24.7.2014.
2. The Vehicle Engine No.275 9DI 06EWYSA 7951 and chassis No. MATR 445227 DZE 39353 met an accident on 10.12.2013 at about 3 P.M. on S.H.124 near village Tarbeda. The local people shifted the injured to hospital for treatment. One Kali Charan Biswal lodged a F.I.R on 10.12.2013. In course of treatment Manas Ranjan died at V.S.S. M.C.Hospital, Burla.
3. The policy was under P.A. coverage for owner –driver under Section III C.S.I for Rs.2.00 Lakhs. The complainants as natural parents of deceased claimed the amount but the O.P neither repudiated nor entertained the claim of the complainants. The complainants alleged deficiency in service on the part of O.P and unfair trade practice.
4. The Opposite Party after appearance filed its version through its Manager–legal duly authorized signatory. The Opp.Party said that the complaint is not maintainable. The insurance policy for TATA ACE EXBS III vehicle was issued by the O.P having chassis No. MAT445227 DZE 39353 and Engine No. MAT275IDI06E WYSA7-951. The policy was valid from 25.7.2013 to 24.07.2014 . The insured  Manas Ranjan Behera was  the owner–Driver And policy covers the risk of Rs.2.00 Lakhs as per the condition that the owner – driver must be the registered owner , there must be an accident of the vehicle causing death as injury at the time of accident, the owner – driver should possess a valid and effective D.L. No such claim has been made by the legal representatives of the deceased nor any documents was made available at any point of time claiming the personal accident coverage . The complaint is a frivolous complaint and liable to be rejected with cost.
5. After perusal of the complaint, version of the O.P and documents filed by the complainant the following issues are framed.
103606587.  

1. Whether the vehicle bearing Chassis No.MAT445227DZE39353 and Engine No.275 IDI06EWYSA7951 was having valid insurance, ownership documents and policy risk coverage of owner-driver for an amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs?
2. Was there any deficiency in service of the Opp. Party when no any claim has been made by the complainants’/ legal representatives?
3. What relief the complainants are entitled to get?

ISSUE NO.1:- Whether the vehicle bearing Chassis No.MAT445227DZE39353 and Engine No.275 IDI06EWYSA7951 was having valid insurance, ownership documents and policy risk coverage of owner-driver for an amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs?

It is the admitted  case of both the parties that the vehicle TATA ACE EXBS- III having Chassis No.MAT 445227 DZE 39353 Engine No.275-9DI 06EWYSA 7951 was having a policy No.3003/T,.M-00127817/00/000 valid from 25.07.2013 to 24.07.2014 MN covering P.A coverage for owner-driver for an amount of Rs.2,00 Lakhs . The vehicle met an accident on 10.12.2013 at about 3 P.M and driver–owner Manas Ranjan Behera died at V.S.S.M.C. Hospital, Burla during the period of treatment.

Manas Ranjan Behera purchased the vehicle on25.07.2013 from Jalan Automobiles Pvt. Ltd and sale certificate No. Jalan A-R-1314-00353-SC was issued on the same day for an amount of Rs.3,64,030.00 . The vehicle was hypothecated to Tata Motors Pvt. Ltd. The O.P after receiving Rs.22,848.00 granted the policy certificate No.3003/T.M- 00127817/00/000 to the deceased and also received Rs.7053,00 towards own damage(A). The policy reflected the engine number and chassis number of the vehicle and shown as new vehicle.

At the time of accident dated 10.12.2013 the vehicle was not registered with the Regional Transport Authority as is reveals. Here question arises when the vehicle is not registered why the O.P issued insurance policy taking the premium?

The sale letter, engine number and chassis number reflected that owner of the vehicle is Manas Ranjan Behera and the O.P cannot go away from the liability although the vehicle is not having any registration number.

The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No.2 :- Was there any deficiency in service of the Opp. Party when no any claim has been made by the complainants’/ legal representatives?

The natural parents of the deceased have filed this complaint. One Mita Behera (19), wife of deceased is the nominee in the policy. The complainants not uttered a single word regarding claim application before the O.P. The O.P voluntarily replied that taking the pretext of restrictions and innocency of villagers, the complainants cannot be exonerated from the legal requirements. Here question arises after knowing the facts of accident, what steps the O.P has taken? Not a single document has been filed by the O.P., insurance policy and other related documents. After appearance in this case, no any steps have been taken by the Opp. Party to ascertain the facts of contract of insurance. Insurance contract is made with utmost good faith from both sides i.e. the insurer and insured. Granting a policy after receiving the premium does not exclude the insurer from the liabilities, if any legal requirement like claim application is not made. It was the duty of O.P to observe the formalities when taking the complainants as innocent and restrict villagers suo-moto. The O.P has not performed their part of contract, nor made any enquiry not taken steps to obtain claim form filled up etc Lakhs of insured in the country are not getting such benefits due to professional attitude of the insurance companies.

Accordingly, the issue is answered against the O.P. The O.P is deficient in its service to the legal representatives of the deceased.

 

 

Issue No.3:- What relief the complainants are entitled to get?

The complainants along with Mita Behera, wife of the deceased are entitled for the relief although Mita Behera has not been made a party in this case. Technicalities cannot debar the right of the person.

Accordingly, it is ordered.

                                                O R D E R.

The complaint is allowed on contest. The complainants and legal heirs of deceased insured are entitled for the P.A. claim coverage amounting to Rs.2.00 Lakhs. For record purpose the O.P is directed to obtain the claim form from the complainants and legal heirs within one month from receipt of this order and pay the sum of Rs.2,00 lakhs with 4% interest P.A from the day of Death of insured i.e. 10.12.203 , failing which the amount will carry 12% interest P.A till realization . Further the O.P is directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards the non-observance of formalities of claims along with litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.

Order pronounced in open court on this 24^th day of June 2022.

Supply free copies to the parties.