DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KEONJHAR
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO 40 of 2021
Mr Mukesh kumar Sahoo,aged about 32 years,
S/O-Muralidhar Sahoo,vill-Atapur(Badakuanrapatana),
P.O-Keonjhargarh,P.S-Town,
Dist-Keonjhar…………………………………….………Complainant
Versus
1.Managing Director
Cholamandalam Ms General insurance Comp.Ltd
New No-2,Old-234,Dare House,ii floor,N.S.C Bose Road,Parrys,Chennai-Ho-600001,Tamilnadu,India
2.The Legal Manager
Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Comp.Ltd
Plot No-A/167 Sahid Nagar,Near Sparsa Hospital,Bhubaneswar,Khurda 751001
3.The Branch Manager
Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Comp.Ltd
Chola Insurance Distribution service pvt ltd.Plot No-887/2692 udit Nagar Birsa Road,infront of INDRA PLAZA above kalinga DENTAl Clinil Rourkela,Odisha-769001,Dist-Sundargarh,odisha
4. The Manager
Cholamandalam Finance And investment.comp ltd.
At-Mining Road,Po-Keonjhargarh,P.S-Town,
Dist-Keonjhar ………………………………………………….… Opp.Parties
Sri B.N.Patra,President
Sri. J.K.Behera,Member I/C
Advocate for complainant- B.K Pati
Advocate for O.Ps 1 ,2,3- P.K Pothal
Op-4-Set exparte
Date of filing- 11.10.2021 Date of order- 25.11.2022
Sri B.N Patra (President)
Brief facts of the case is that the complainant had purchased one vehicle (12 wheeler truck) bearing Regd. No OD-09Q-8265 duly financed by Op.No-4 and said vehicle was having valid insurance by Op.No- 1,2 & 3 and it was valid till 30.05.21. The said vehicle met with an accident on dated 13.01.2021 at 10pm near Pokharia Chhak under Singda police beat house. The said vehicle was used by complainant for his livelihood. As a result of said accident the vehicle was damaged and on the same day the matter was reported to singda police beat house and informed to local insurance office. One surveyor was appointed by the insurance company who submitted his report. After repairing said vehicle the complainant submitted his bill and claim application to Ops. After repair the claimant submitted original final bill of Rs 5,98,551/-. At first company offered Rs 1,78,000/- as per survey report. But due to request of claimant about excess expenditure incurred by him. The insurance company further extended claim amount of Rs 2,25,000/- which was offered to claimant but the complainant do not agree to receive it. The finance company threatened to repossess said vehicle .The ( Op party) insurance company have not paid the claim amount which is deficiency of service by Ops. On the above allegation the complainant filed this complaint case praying Rs 5,98,551/- as claim amount and Rs 2,00,000/-for mental agony and Rs 20,000/-for litigation fee with interest.
On the above complaint the case was admitted interim order was passed not to repossess the vehicle which was passed on 29.10.21.Notice issued to Ops and they appeared and filed their
written version but Op.No-4 appeared, but could not filed w/version So he is debarred from filing w/version and he is declared set –exparte.
Op. No.1,2 & 3 strongly denied the excess claim. They supported the surveyor report for which the claim amount is decided of Rs 2,25,000. On the above allegation complainant relied on following documents.
1.Xerox copy of R.C.
2.Xerox copy of Smart Card.
3.Xerox copy of Insurance.
4.Advocate notice-xerox copy.
5. reply letters dtd-21.08.21(Xerox)
6.Chola Insurance Finance
7.reply letter-dtd-7.9.21
8.Payment showing in received
9.Photograph of damaged vehicle
10.Calculation sheet
On the other hand Op.No-1,2 & 3 filed copies of following documents. Final notice, Survyor report, citation memo.
Before deciding the case it is necessary to attend the following issues for discussion.
1.whether the case is maintainable or not?
2.Whether excess expenditure bill submitted by complainant is admissible or not?
3.Whether cause of action arises on this matter?
4.Whether the Ops have made deficiency of service?
5.What relief the complainant is entitled to get or not?
All the issues are discussed in Para wise as follows-:
1. The complainant purchased the vehicle for earning his livelihood and also has insured the vehicle No-OD-09Q-8265(TATA LPT 3118 truck) before the Op-1,2,3 and the policy was valid from 31.05.20 to midnight of 30.05.21.So,he is definitely a consumer of Ops. being financed by Op.No-4.
2. The said truck met with an accident on dt 13.01.21 at Pokharia Chakka under Singda police beat house. So cause of action arises on within the limitation period and the complainant being resident of Keonjhar town has filed in the proper jurisdiction of this commission.
3. After the accident the matter was informed to Singda police beat house and also to the Ops.Op insurance company appointed a surveyor to investigate the matter and to asses damage of the said vehicle. He submitted its report declaring the net liability of Rs 1,78,000/-But the learned advocate strongly objects the surveyor report. He submitted that the complainant has made repairing of vehicle at Kanha garage at Jasipur and as per original final bills the claim amount is Rs 5,98,551/-. At last the insurance company after due request of complainant granted Rs 2,25,000/- as claim amount. But complainant did not receive it for which the company sent a notice to complainant .Learned Advocate of Op-1,2 & 3 further submitted that surveyor report is final for which he cited the following decision apex court.
1.Surveyours report is only reliable document which is to be considered for setting insurance claim.{2017(3)CPR 71(NC)}
2.Report of surveyor cannot be brushed aside merely on the basis of bills.
2012(2) CPR-94
4. Learned Advocate for complainant submitted that Mr Shyam Sundar Mishra , surveyour who prepared the report and submitted report declaring net liability of insurance is 1,78,000/- but on dt 28.07.21, it was re-surveyed but report was prepared on 18.02.21.Report is doubt full. It was not mentioned all damaged item. Learned Adv submitted that Op-2 has joined hands with present surveyor to harass the claimant, and the surveyor report suffer from in-firmities and he cannot be relied to settle the claim. Due to refuse by complainant to receive the claim amount Ops has declared it has “No claim”. The Ops have harassed the claimant mentally and physically for which he is entitled to get Rs 2,00,000/- compensation. And also 20,000/- for litigation charges. Ops have made deficiency of service
On the other hand the learned Adv for Ops further submitted that the complainant has filed excess bill. So it is not acceptable. The complainant has not submitted the mandatory documents such as discharge voucher duly sign to process his claim. But complainant had not respond, So there is no deficiency of service by Ops for which it is declared. “No Claim”. The Ops cannot pray mere than beyond the assessed net value of Rs 1,78.000/-.
So Learned Advocate submitted that the claim of petitioner is baseless, without any legal basis, beyond the bill terms and condition. So it should be dismissed with cost of litigation.
On the analysis of the petition and documents filed by complainant it is clear that the Ops company un necessarily lingering the claims of complaints to produce different documents and at last when complainant became silent to receive the amount Rs1,78,000/- then Ops enhanced the claim amount of Rs 2,25,000/- to as claim amount.
If we see the expenditure of complainant to repair the damage vehicle and bills submitted at first Rs 6,21,000/-and then Rs 5,98,551/- and prayed at last Rs 5,98,551/- as claim amount. There may be chance of showing excess bills which are unverified. So in this situation latest decision of apex court is reliable. So the estimate of surveyor is realising to get the claim amount. On the above situation it came to the light of Commission that Ops have made deficiency of service and the complainant is entitled to get reliefs.
Order
The Op.No. 1,2 & 3 are directed to pay the claim amount of Rs 2,25,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs 20,000/-All the total amount of Rs 2,25,000/- + Rs20,000/- = Rs2,45,000/- to complainant within one month of receipt of this Order. If failed to pay the claim amount to the complainant it shall carry 6% interest from the date of filing till realisation. Interim order passed earlier is vacated.
The order pronounced in open Commission today i.e on 25th November 2022.
Free copy be supplied to parties, if applied for.
Pronounced on 25th November.2022
I agree
( Sri J. K. Behera) ( B.N Patra )
Member I/C (President)
DCDRC,Keonjhar DCDRC,Keonjhar
Dictated & Corrected by
( Sri B. N. Patra)
President
DCDRC,Keonjhar
