Orissa

Malkangiri

CC/99/2021

Pinninti Sai, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

01 Mar 2023

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/99/2021
( Date of Filing : 14 Sep 2021 )
 
1. Pinninti Sai,
aged about 39 years, S/O Late P.S. Naidu, Resident of Durgagudi Street, Malkangiri, At/PO/PS/Dist. Malkangiri.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Manager ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
3rd Floor, Plot No. 29, Anuj Building Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar- 751007.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Sri Prafulla Kumar Panda PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MS. Salma Bano MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 01 Mar 2023
Final Order / Judgement

 

1.         The brief history of the case is that the complainant is a consumer under the OP having been availed the Insurance service against his vehicle for monetary consideration vide Regd. No. OD -30 C 9900 with the OP vide Insurance Police No. MGM/SK 109310 Dtd. 26.04.2021 valid till 25.04.2022. The cause of action arose when the alleged vehicle met with an accident while the vehicle was returning from Umerkote to Malkangiri, on the way near Dabugoan, suddenly one wild animal came in front of the vehicle and to save the life of the animal, the driver Swadhin Sarkar moved the vehicle towards left in the result of which the vehicle dashed to a culvert and capsized and the vehicle got totally damaged. The driver Swadhin Sarkar alias Rana and helper Monoj Kumar Senapati were rescued by the local Police and shifted to the hospital and the Police registered  a case vide their general Diary entry No. 19, dtd. 07.07.2021.

2.         It is submitted that immediately after the accident, the complainant informed the said fact to the Op on 07.07.2021 at about 10.45 P.M. the surveyor of the OP came to the spot and carried out the survey work and as per his advise, the complainant submitted all the relevant documents and written statement of concerned driver and the complainant.  And after proper verification the surveyor assured the complainant to settle the Insurance claim at the earliest and advised the complainant to shift the vehicle to a garage to carry out service work.

3.         As per the advise of the surveyor, the complainant shifted his vehicle to Shivayaa Cars Pvt. Ltd. at Raipur by toeing the vehicle from the accident spot incurring expenses of Rs. 15,000/- , where in the estimated bill for repair of the vehicle by the garage was of Rs. 18,65,071/- where as the cost of the vehicle was Rs. 21,50,000/- and the work shop owner  told the complainant that the vehicle is completely damaged and beyond repair. Then the complainant contacted the OP through their contact No. i.e. 08828306098 and narrated the entire fact but the Op with one pretext or the other, only assured  to settled the claim early, but did not do anything. The complainant waited for the same but there was no response from the OP till September, 2021.

4.         It is further submitted that on 03.09.2021, complainant received one letter from OP wherein emphasizing the driver’s clause and differentiate the name of the driver, have denied to settled the claim and again asked for clarification.  Copy enclosed for reference of Hon’ble Commission. It is submitted that the driver Swadhin Sarkar, who is locally known as Rana, who was driving the alleged the vehicle at the time accident, is having valid and effective D.L vide D.L. No. OD- 3020120007379 authorized to drive LMV & MCWG valid till 2032, which is also noticed by the concerned Dabugoan P.S. copy enclosed to reference of Hon’ble Commission.

5.         In reply the counsel for OP neither a appeared nor submitted counter to the allegations leveled by the complainant. Even after given ample opportunities to the OP to submit their counter and to turn up for hearing they paid no heed to the Commission’s notice in one pretext or the other. The National Commission and the State Commission many cases has observed that, it cannot wait for indefinite period for the OP to turn up for hearing and submission of counter  which will Jeoparadise the principles of natural justice and against the provision of the C.P. Act.

6.         As thus we are of the view that the OP failed miserably to render justice to the complainant, for which the complainant suffered immensely financially and mentally. Thus we found gross deficiency of service on the part of the OP which should be panelized heavily to set an example in this regard. So we allow the complaint in totto and order that.

                                                                                                           ORDER

The OP is directed to pay the entire cost of the vehicle which is beyond repair and to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 30,000/- towards litigation charges and to pay the Parking charges demanded if so by the works shop within 30 days of receiving this order, failing which the entire amount will carry 10% interest per annum from the date of order. Pronounced in the open Commission on 1st day of March 2023.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sri Prafulla Kumar Panda]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MS. Salma Bano]
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.