IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.
Present: 1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President,
2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,
3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.
Dated the 16th day of January,2015.
C. C. Case No.06 of 2014
Sri Ramesh Chandra Sahoo, S/O Banchhanidhi Sahoo
Vill.P.O-Neulpur, P.S. Dharmasala.
Dist.- Jajpur. ……………..Complainant . (Versus)
1. Manager of Tata Motors Finance Ltd, At/P.O/P.S. Jajpur Road, Dist .jajpur
2. Bharati AXA General Insurance Co.Ltd, No.760,2nd floor of M.J.Plaza
Cuttack Puri Road, Bhubaneswar.
……………. …Opp.Parties.
For the Complainant: Sri S. Moharana , Advocate.
For the Opp. Party No.1 Sri N.K. Dash. Sri N.K. Sethy, Miss.D. Mandal,
Sri P.K. Mohapatra, Advocates
For the Opp. Party No.2 Sri A. K. Dash, Advocate.
Date of order : 16. 01.2015.
SHRI BIRAJA PRASAD KAR, PRESIDENT.
The complainant has filed this dispute alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. on the ground that the complainant purchased a commercial Truck bearing Regd.No.0R-04L-1145 under the financial assistance from O.P no.1. The said Truck was duly insured by O.P.no.2 vide policy No. Fev / 10597938/01 06/K 10117 commencing from 04.06.2011 to midnight of 03.06.2012. The aforesaid truck met two accidents on 03.02.11 near Dharmasala police station. The F.I.R was lodged before the Tangi police station and also intimation regarding the accident and damage was given to the O.P.no.1 for payment of Rs.2,00,000/- towards damage. But the O.P did not pay any heed to it. Again the aforesaid truck met an accident on 08.09.2011 near Jaraka and truck was damaged. The complainant also lodged F.I.R before the Dharmasala police station on 08.09.11 and intimated the O.Ps. for payment of Rs.3,000,00/- . The O.Ps. also did not pay any heed to it. Hence, the complainant suffered mental agony ,harassment . As the O.Ps. did not settle the O.D settlement of the complainant there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. . The complainant filed this dispute claiming an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation from the O.Ps. towards the deficiency in service.
On being noticed the O.P. no.1 appeared and filed his written version denying the allegations made in the complainant and inter alia pleaded that the complainant is not a “ consumer’ as per section 2(d) of C.P. Act as the complainant has not produced any record to show that the vehicle was being used for his livelihood . The financer O.P.no.1 is no way liable to pay the own damage claim . The complainant is a habitual defaulter in paying E.M.Is . There is no negligence on the part of the O.P. no.1 . Hence, the C.C. Case is liable to be dismissed with costs.
The O.P.no.2 appeared and filed his written version refuting the allegations made in the complaint petition and it is pleaded in the written version that admittedly this O.P. had issued insurance policy against vehicle No.0R-04-L-1145 of the applicant after taking necessary premium as alleged by the petitioner in para-2 of the petition. The O.P is completely ignorant about the fact of alleged accident for two times on 03.02.11 near Dharmasala police station and another accident on 08.09.11 near Jaraka under Dharamasala P.S as reflected in para-5 of the petition. As per policy conditions, it is mandatory to give information of the alleged loss immediately for necessary investigation about its genuineness of the claim but the claim intimation has not yet been received by this O.P. it is needless to submit that, the O.P. after receiving the notice from the DCDRF, Jajpur came to know about the alleged loss which is after a long gap of one year for the first time. As the petitioner has given no information about the alleged loss to this O.P. immediately after the alleged loss, there is violation to the stipulations made by the IRDA in the alleged policy. So there is absolutely no deficit of service in any manner on the part of the O.P.
On the date of hearing we have heard the arguments from both the sides. Perused the record and documents available on record.
Basing on the pleadings, arguments, documents placed on record it is not disputed that the complainant’s vehicle (Truck) bearing Regd.No.0R-04-L-1145 was financed by O.P.no.1 and it was insured with the O.P.no.2 bearing policy No.FCV/ 1 0597938/01/06/K 10117. The Insurance policy was valid from 04.06.11 to midnight of 03.06.12 . It is alleged by the complainant that his vehicle met two accidents on 03.02.11 for which he had lodged FIR and claim own damage. As observed from the policy the two accidents met on 03.02.11 were prior to the policy period. Hence, we ignore the same. As regards accident dt.08.09.11 the complainant has also not filed a single scrap of paper to establish that his vehicle met an accident on 08.09.11 and the matter was intimated to the O.Ps. for O.D settlement to which the O.Ps. denied. The O.P.no.2 specially denied that they came to know about the accident after receiving notice from the DCDRF. It is the cannon of law that the complainant is to
establish his case . In absence of any material and evidence from the side of the complainant regarding claim intimation to the O.P.no.2 and FIR before the police we are unable to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. in settling the O.D claim of the complainant. Hence, the C.C. Case is liable to be dismissed.
O R D E R
Resultantly the C.C. Case is dismissed against the O.Ps. without any costs.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 16th day of January ,2015. under my hand and seal of the Forum.
(Shri Pitabas Mohanty) (Shri Biraja Prasad Kar)
Member. President.
Typed to my dictation & corrected by me
(Miss Smita Ray) ( Shri Biraja Prasad Kar )
Member. President.
