Orissa

Cuttak

CC/51/2023

Mrs Anusaya Swain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager ,Motor Claims,Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B K Praharaj & associates

09 Nov 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.51/2023

Mrs. Anusuya Swain,

W/o: Rabindranath Swain,

Plot No.379,Maitri Nagar,Potapokhari,

Nayabazar,Cuttack,Odisha.                                                               ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

1.       Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Represented through its Manager,Motor Claims,

                 2^nd floor,5 Janapath,Unit-3,Kharvel Nagar,

                  Bhubaneswar,Odisha,Pin-751001

 

2.       Consortium Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented by its brokers SMC Insurance Brokers Ld.,

IRDA Direct Broker License No.DB272/04/289,

Office at Plot No.644/2148,NH-16,

                   Pahal,Bhubaneswar-752101.                                                             ...Opp.parties                                           

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    10.02.2023

Date of Order:  09.11.2023

 

For the complainant:           Mr. B.K.Praharaj,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.1 :                           None.

For the O.P No.2 :                   Sri R.Mukherjee,Advocate.

         

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                                              

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that she had purchased a KIA SONET D1.5 MT GTX PLUS car bearing Regd. No.OD-05-HZ-9100 and had insured the said vehicle with the O.Ps vide policy no.PRDKIA2240851 which was effective from 17.2.2022 till the midnight of 16.2.2023.  On 26.11.2022 unfortunately, the said car of the complainant had met with an accident thereby sustaining severe damage for which claim was made by the complainant before the O.Ps.  It is further contention of the complainant through her complaint petition that though she had insurance coverage of Nil depreciation there was unreasonable delay by the O.Ps for which she was subjected to difficulties and harassment.  Her claim was rejected arbitrarily for which she had sustained mental agony and harassment also.  She was asked to pay a sum of Rs.10,100/- apart from the insurance coverage even though she had Nil depreciation policy for her purchased KIA SONET D1.5 MT GTX PLUS car.  On her enquiry she was made to understand that the damages those which are not covered in the insurance policy is to be paid by the complainant for which the complainant has allelged about the unfair trade practice by the O.Ps and has filed this case seeking direction to the O.Ps in order to pay her the amount that which she had paid to the tune of Rs,.10,100/- alongwith interest thereon since because she had Nil depreciation insurance policy.  She has claimed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the O.Ps towards her mental agony and harassment and another cost of Rs.50,000/- towards her litigation expenses.  She has also prayed for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

            Together with her complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove her case.

2.         Having not preferred to contest this case, the O.P no.1 has been set exparte vide order dated 26.4.2023.  However, O.P no.2 has contested this case who has filed his written version and has mentioned therein that they have been unnecessarily dragged into the case by the complainant.  They admit about the insured car of the complainant which was having insurance coverage.  The damaged car of the complainant was received on 28.11.2022 by them which had sustained damage due to the accident on 26.11.22.  The repairing estimate was made on 1.12.22 and the Surveyor Sri Biranchi Satpathy was appointed for the same.  The repairing work of the said damaged vehicle of the complainant was completed by 16.11.22 and the complainant was asked to pay a sum of Rs.10,100/- apart from the insurance policy coverage.  O.P no.2 admits to be the representative broker of the O.P no.1 but they were excluded from claiming assessment, survey, loss adjustment and settlement charges.  Thus, according to O.P no.2, they were never at fault & there was no deficiency on their part for which they have prayed through their written version to dismiss the complaint petition as filed against them.

            The O.P no.2 has also filed copies of several documents alongwith his written version in order to support his stand.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P No.2, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite 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 and if they have practised any unfair trade ?

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

Issues no.ii.

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

On perusal of the complaint petition, the written version of O.P no.2, the written notes of submissions from the side of complainant and O.P no.2 and after perusing the documents as available in the case record, it is noticed that infact the complainant had purchased a KIA SONET D1.5 MT GTX PLUS car which was covered under Insurance Policy No. PRDKIA2240851 effective from 17.2.2022 to the midnight of 16.2.2023 and the same was done by the O.Ps.  It is not in dispute that the said motor car of the complainant had met with an accident on 26.11.2022 and thereby had sustained severe damages.  As per the written version of O.P no.2, the said damaged car of the complainant was received at their workshop on 28.11.22.  The Surveyor Sri Biranchi Satpathy was appointed to assess the loss as sustained by the complainant and the damaged car of the complainant was repaired within a span of 18 days by the O.P no.2 that is to say by 16.12.22 the car of the complainant was ready which was taken away by the complainant but she was asked to pay an amount of Rs.10,100/- apart from the insurance policy coverage.  O.P no.2, do not dispute about the Nil depreciation policy of the complainant.  Thus, it is not understood as to when the complainant had Nil depreciation policy which was effective on the date of accident of her car, as to why the excess amount levied on he and was was collected from her by O.P no.2 to the tune of Rs.10,100/-.  This charge of Rs. 10,100/- from the complainant apart from the insurance coverage of her car has remained unanswered here in this case.  The main insurer who is O.P no.1, has not contested this case for which he has been set exparte vide order dt.26.4.2023.  Thus, this Commission comes to a finding and concludes here in this case that such payment of Rs. 10,100/- as collected from the complainant appears to be arbitrary and  illegal which is without any proper justification, for which this Commission finds the O.Ps to be deficient in their service and also found them to have practised unfair trade here in this case.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the complainant.

 

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                              ORDER

Case is decreed on contest against O.P No.2 and exparte against O.P no.1 who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  Thus, the O.Ps are directed to refund Rs.10,100/- to the complainant as taken from her towards the repairing charges of her damaged car alongwith with interest thereon @ 8% per annum with effect from 16.12.2022 till the total  amount is quantified and to compensate her by paying a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards  her mental agony and harassment.   The O.Ps are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant towards cost of her litigation.  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 9^th day of   November,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                       Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President

                                                                                 Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                              Member