Orissa

Cuttak

CC/8/2021

Ratip Kumar Bhadra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Limited - Opp.Party(s)

P K Ray

23 May 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.08/2021

          Ratip Kumar Bhadra,

           S/O: Ramesh Chandra Bhadra,

           At:Anuapada,P.O:Sorisia,

          P.S/Dist:Kendrapara, at present resides

          At: Plot No.F/581,Sector-6,C.D.A,Markat Nagar,

          P.S:MarkatNagar,Dist:Cuttack.                                    ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.       ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Having its registered office at Plot No.414,

Veer Savarkar Marg, Pravadevi, Muimbai-25

Represented through its

Managing Director/Authorised Signatory.  

 

2.      Branch Manager,

M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co, Ltd.,

Plot No.29,ThirdFloor,Anuj Building,

Satya Nagar,P.S:Kharvel Nagar,

Bhubaneswar,Dist:Khurda-751007.

 

3.       Branch Manager,

M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co, Ltd.,

Kailash Plaza,Plot No.597,Surya Vihar,LinkRoad,Cuttack,

Pin-753012.

 

4.       Manager,

M/s. Super Sales Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

At/PO:BapujiNagar,Bhubaneswar,

Dist:Khurda,Pin-753012.                         … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    12.01.2021

Date of Order:  23.05.2023

 

For the complainant: Mr. P.K.Ray,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P. no.1,2 &3  :                Mr. R.Pati,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P no.4:                                    None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                                                

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased a Jawa ABS motorcycle bearing Regd. No.OD-02-BJ-6633 having Chassis No.MZDKW1C16L1A29313 and Engine No.NAE-LA030465 on 19.2.2020.  He had insured the said vehicle with the O.Ps no.1 & 2 vide Policy No.3005/2012592695/00/0000000130 on 24.2.20 for a tenure of 5 years and had paid the premium of Rs.8528/- which was effective upto 23.2.25.  On 30.7.2020 his motorcycle met with an accident and was damaged while he was going from Cuttack to his village, for which he had carried his damaged motorcycle to the authorized service centre and had reported the matter to O.Ps no.1 & 2 who had thereby deputed one Surveyor namely Chandan Jena. The said Surveyor took photographs of the damaged vehicle.  The workshop where the motorcycle was given for repair, is arrayed as O.P no.4 in this case and he had raised the invoice towards the repair of the motorcycle to be of Rs.29,758/-.  But the claim of the complainant was not settled by the O.Ps for which he had to file this case claiming the repair cost of his motorcycle to the tune of Rs.29,758/- from the O.Ps together with compensation towards his mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and further a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of his litigation.

             In order to prove his case, the complainant has filed copies of several documents alongwith his complaint petition.

2.         Out of the four O.Ps as arrayed in this case, having not preferred to contest this case, O.P no.4 has been set exparte vide order dt.12.5.2022.  However rest of the O.Ps have jointly contested this case and have filed their joint written version.  According to them, the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed andthe claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by them.  They also urge that the case is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.  According to them, the complainant had deposited the insurance premium towards his vehicle to the dealer, Bijaya Motors wherefrom he had purchased the motorcycle.  But the said amount was not deposited by the said dealer with the Insurance Company and the said dealer is not made a party to this case.  According to them, they had issued a Private Car Package Policy bearing No.No.3005/2012592695/00/0000000130 coveringthe risk of the vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-02-BJ-6633.  They also admit about the accident of the said vehicle of the complainant on 30.7.2020 which was taken to the authorised service station for repair.  According to the O.Ps, as because the premium amount of the insurance policy was paid by way of cheque which was dishonoured, the policy became voidab-initio, accordingly they had rightly repudiated the claim for which they had urged through their written version that the case of the complainant be dismissed with exemplary cost.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps no.1,2 & 3, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper 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.Psand if they have practised any unfair trade ?

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

Issue no.ii.

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

Here in this case as noticed, the purchase of the motorcycle is well admitted, the accident of the same is also admitted and the damaged vehicle being taken to the authorized service centre is also not in dispute.  As it is noticed while perusing Annexure-5 which is a copy of the letter addressed to the learned counsel of the complainant with regard to his query about the non-settlement of the claim, it is categorically mentioned therein about the non-receipt of the premium amount.  The O.Pshave also filed the same copy and a letter vide Annexure-C&also at Annexure-B at sl.no.6.  As it appears in this case, from the written version of the O.Ps that the premium amount was not submitted to them which the complainant had deposited with the dealer of his motorcycle namely Bijaya Motors.  At page-11 of their written version, the O.Ps have mentioned that the policy was voidab-initio since because the premium for the insurance was submitted by way of cheque and the same was dishonoured.  If this be so, it is not understood as to how could the Surveyor-cum-Loss Assessor, Er. Dharanidhar Das being deputed by O.Ps no.1 & 2 for assessing the loss of the damaged vehicle of the complainant;  submitted his final survey report on 25.11.2020 vide Annexure-B has stated that  the policy certificate of insurance bearing No.3005/2012592695/00/0000000130 was valid from 24.2.2020 to 23.2.2021.  This date which is mentioned by the said Surveyor-cum-Loss Assessor in his final survey report has not been questioned by the O.Ps,rather theyhad filed the same alongwith their written version.  Moreso, the complainant has filed Annexure-2 which is certificate-cum-policy schedule wherein it is reflected that the policyperiod of insurance is effective from 13.33 of 24.2.2020 till the midnight of 23.2.2021.  As it appears, it is not a copy of provisional policy certificate.  There is also no condition mentioned in Annexure-2 that the said policy will only be valid after acceptance of the premium, amount of Rs.8,528/- and if the said amount was issued by way of cheque.  Thus, it can never be said here in this case that the premium was not paid by the complainant and that the said premium, had not reached to the O.Ps as claimed by them.  It is because, the O.Ps have utterly failed to prove their plea that the premium amount was paid by way of cheque and if the same was dishonoured and it was paid to the dealer of the vehicle which they had not received.  Rather, issuance of the policy certificate and by accepting and filing the final survey report of the surveyor wherein the policy period categorically covers the date of accident, this Commission is clearly of a view that by not disbursing the claim amount to the complainant there was indeed deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and their vague pleas as taken by them indicates the practice of unfair trade also 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 undoubtedly maintainable and he is definitely entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.

                                              ORDER

The case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps 1,2 & 3 and exparte against O.P no.4.  The contesting O.Ps are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case,  The said O.Psare thus directed to pay the repairing cost of thevehicle i.e. Rs.29,758/-to the complainant and to pay a sum of  Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant towards his mental agony and harassment and further to pay  a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of his 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 23^rd day of May,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.          

                                                                                                                            Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                       President

 

 

 

                                                                                                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                             Member