DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                                                C.C.NO.49 OF 2017

Present: Sri Rabindranath Mishra            - President.

                 Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattanaik   -  Member .

Sri Trilochan Sahoo, aged - 42 years

S/O: Bijay Kumar Sahoo At/PO: Mundigarh.

 PS: Tumudibandh Dist: Kandhamal.                                                     ……………………….. Complainant.

                                Versus.

1. Managing Director,

IFFCO- Tokio General Insurance Col Ltd.

Regd. Office – IFFCO Sadan C.I Distt. Centre, Saket

New Delhi- 110017.

 Branch Manager

2. IFFCO- TOKIO General InsuranceCo. Ltd.

1,2 Floor HIG-22. B.D.A Colony

Jayadev Bihar Bhubaneswar.                                                          …………………………….. OPP. Parties.

For the Complainant: Self.

For the OPP. Parties: Sri V.V Ramadas, Advocate, Phulbani.

Date of Order: 31-03-2018

O R D E R

                                                   The case of the Complainant in brief is that he was the owner of an Auto bearing No. OD12A0434 and the same vehicle was insured under the Opposite Parties. The said Insurance policy was valid from 04-11-2016 to midnight of 03-11-2017. On 04-07-2017 at about 7 P.M the said vehicle met an accident near Tumudibandha as one dumper vehicle of R.K.D Company dashed against the said vehicle ,as a result of which the driver of the auto died at the spot and the vehicle was damaged. Accordingly the F.I.R was lodged before the O.I.C of Tumudibandha PS on 05-07-2017. Then the Complainant approached the O.P No.2 for settlement of his claim time and again but as they had not taken any steps for the settlement of his claim, he had filed an application on 18-09-2017 before the Consumer Counseling Center of Phulbani. But without any final decision, the same was referred to this forum for consideration. The complainant claimed Rs. 2, 04,999/- towards repair of the vehicle along with compensation of Rs. 1, 00000/- towards his mental agony.

                                                                                                -2-

                                                The case of the O.Ps as per their joint version is that the matter of accident is not within the knowledge of O.Ps. No information was given to the O.Ps in this regard and no surveyor was engaged at any point of time. The required documents were not submitted before O.P. The copy of license of the owner was also not supplied to the O.Ps. No claim has been made in a prescribed form of the Insurance Company before the O.P either for the damage of the vehicle or his own damage.

                                                The further case of the O.Ps is that there is no cause of action to file this case and the complaint is not a Consumer as per C.P Act. The O.P has not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed with cost.

                                                We have heard the complainant and the learned counsel appearing for the O.Ps. We have gone through the complaint petition and the documents filed by the complainant in support of his case. We have also perused the version filed by the O.Ps. On verification of the documents it is seen that the O.P gave reminder to the Complainant for production of some documents relating to the accident of the vehicle of the Complainant. So, it can not be said that the Complainant had not filed any claim application before the O.ps as alleged by them in their version. It is seen that the Insurance policy was valid at the time of the accident and both the driver and owner of the vehicle have effective driving license at the time of accident. The O.Ps are responsible for appointment of the surveyor after getting information regarding the accident from the Complainant. From the F.I.R it reveals that the Complainant is maintaining his livelihood from the source of this auto only .On perusal of the record it seen that neither any surveyor report nor any estimate regarding the damage vehicle available in the record but it is mentioned in the application of the Complainant that the vehicle was damaged nearly 60 % due to said accident. The value of the vehicle is Rs. 1,68,000/- as per Insurance policy . So, the Complainant is liable to get 50 % of the total value of the vehicle it is Rs. 84,000/- towards repair charge of the damage vehicle after deducting the depreciation charge. Accordingly the Complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed in part.

                                                In the above circumstances the O.P is directed to pay Rs. 84,000/- to the Complainant towards repair charge of the damaged vehicle within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Otherwise the complainant shall be entitled to get 10 % interest from the O.ps on the awarded amount from the date of filing of this complaint it is 08-12-2017 till the date of payment.

                                                With the above direction the C.C is disposed of. Supply free copy of this order to both the parties at an early date.

                                                                                MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT