Orissa

Cuttak

CC/142/2021

Abhaya Kumar Rout - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,Reliance GIC - Opp.Party(s)

B M Mohpatra

26 Oct 2022

ORDER

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

      C.C.No.142/2021

Abhaya Kumar Rout,

S/O:Somnath Rout of Kapursingh,P.O:Oranda,

Via:Athagarh,P.S:Gurudijhatia,

Dist:Cuttack.                                                ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.       Managing Director,Reliance G.I.C

Reliance Conten,6^th Floor,Obrei Comenz,

International Business Park,Obrei Garden City

Off-Western Express,Highway Goregaon(E),

Mumbai-400063.

 

2.      Branch Manager,

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

2^nd Floor,5,Janpath,Unit-III,Kharvela Nagar,

Bhubaneswar,Dist:Khordha-751001.

 

3.     Branch Manager,

Hinduja Leyland Finance,

Manisha Plaza,Link Road,

P.O:Arunodaya Market,

Dist:Cuttack-753012..

 

4.    State Head,

Hinduja Leyland Finance,

At-HIG-46,Jayadev Vihar,Bhubaneswar,

Dist:Khordha-751013.

 

5.   Managing Director,Rashmi Motors,

At:Manguli,NH-5,Dist:Cuttack-754025,

Odisha.                                                                                ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    06.09.2021

Date of Order:   26.10.2022

 

For the complainant      :        Mr. B.M.Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps No.1,2 & 5:             None.

For the O.Ps no.3 & 4    :        Mr. A.K.Samal,Advocate.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                              

                                                        

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased one Ashok Leyland truck from O.Ps no.3 & 4 after obtaining finance from them.  The said truck of the complainant was insured.  On 9.6.21 while the said truck bearing Regd. No.OD-05-AL-7022 of the complainant was transporting coal, it had met with an accident at Nadhara Chhack of Dhenkanal thereby causing severe damage to the front side of the truck as well as to the engine.  The matter was immediately reported by Aditya, the nephew of the complainant, at the neareby Hindol Outpost.  The matter was enquired into and the Station Diary Enquiry report was given on 10.6.21.  During the said accident, the truck was being driven by the driver Jagabandhu Sutar who had a valid driving license then.  The complainant had immediately reported about the accident to the insurance company as well as to the financier, that is to say, to all the O.Ps.  O.P No.2 had deputed a surveyor for evaluating the damage and it was estimated by O.P no.5 for a total cost of Rs.10, 22,508.22p to be required for repairing the engine and the cabin of the said truck.  On 23.7.21 the O.P through his letter had intimated the complainant that the alleged truck was being driven by one Manoj Bhoi during the said accident and the said Manoj Bhoi had no valid driving license and thus it was in violation to the terms and conditions of the policy for which the claim was repudiated.  On 2.8.21, the complainant had ventilated his grievances to the O.Ps as regards to the unilateral and arbitrary repudiation.  The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the authorised service centre of the O.P no.5 towards repair of his damaged truck and for which he could not make payment of the E.M.Is as due from him from the date of the accident.  In connection with the E.M.Is the complainant has filed one C.C.Case bearing no.124 of 2021 which is sub-judice before this Commission seeking direction therein to the O.Ps no.3 & 4 of this case for not to claim the E.M.Is since from the date of accident.  The complainant being harassed had to file this case wherein he has prayed for the estimated insurance claim of Rs.14,00,000/- from the O.Ps, cost of touching for repair the damaged vehicle Rs.30,000/- and a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards harassment and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards unfair trade practice and another sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards his mental agony and a further sum of Rs.50,000/- towards his legal and other expenses.

            He has filed copies of certain documents in order to prove his case.

2.         Out of the five O.Ps as arrayed in this case, having not contested the case O.Ps no.1,2 & 5 have been set exparte.  However, O.Ps no.3 & 4 have contested this case who have filed their written version jointly.

            According to the written version of O.Ps no.3 & 4, the complainant had suppressed the material facts and thus his complaint petition is liable to be rejected and the allegation as made in the complaint petition is mainly towards the O.Ps no.1 & 2 but the complainant had unnecessarily filed this case against them(O.Ps no.3 & 4) without any basis.  They disbelieve the alleged truck of the complainant to have ever been insured as they have no intimation to that effect.  According to them, the complainant had become a defaulter in paying the E.M.Is for which he had concocted this case which is liable to be dismissed.

3.         The points for determination are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

            ii.         Whether the O.Ps no.1 & 2 are deficient in their service ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed and to what extent ?

Issue no.ii

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

Admittedly, the complainant had purchased one Ashok Leyland truck after obtaining finance from O.Ps no.3 & 4.   As per copies of documents filed by the complainant, his truck was insured with O.Ps no.1 & 2 and during the accident, the said vehicle in question was having active insurance.  The complainant has mentioned about one Jagabandhu Sutar to be driving his truck during the accident on 9.6.21 at 12.50 A.M. near Nadhara Chhack of Dhenkanal.  The said Jagabandhu Sutar had a valid driving license then but the O.Ps have rebutted such statement of the complainant and rather have stated that one Manoj Bhoi was driving the vehicle in question during the occurrence who had no valid driving license then, for which the claim of the complainant was repudiated.  In order to come to a conclusion of this dispute of driver, while perusing the letter of the complainant addressed to the insurers vide Annexure-9, it is noticed that the said Manoj Bhoi was only a helper and Jagabandhu Sutar was engaged as the driver who had valid driving license and he was driving the alleged truck while the occurrence took place.  It would be worthwhile to mention about Annexure-3, which is a copy of the Incharge of Hindol Road Outpost, who had mentioned therein that the truck of the complainant bearing no.OD-05-AL-7022 had met with an accident on 9..6.21 at about 12.50 A.M. in the night on National Highway no.55, near Nadhara Chhack of Dhenkanal as because a cow crossed the road in front of the said truck and while the driver applied sudden brake in order to save the cow, the said vehicle had dashed against the rear side of another unknown truck thereby causing damage to the truck of the complainant.  At that time, the said truck was loaded with coal and was plying from Gopalpur port towards Banei and was being driven by Jagabandhu Sutar son of Padmanav Sutar,Village:Mancheswar,PS:Gurudijhatia,Dist:Dhenkanal.  Station Diary Entry no.08 dt.10.6.21 was made to that effect.  Thus, this report as filed by the complainant being given by police personnel who is undoubtedly a Govt. employee; cannot be simply cast aside in absence of any credible evidence to the contrary.  Thus, the plea as taken by the O.Ps as regards to one Manoj Bhoi driving the alleged vehicle during the incident appears to be only the stray statement which lacks proper evidence.  It is for this, after evaluating the facts and circumstances, evidence as available here in this case, this Commission comes to a conclusion that there is no dispute that one Jagabandhu Sutar was driving the alleged truck of the complainant bearing no.OD-05-AL-7022 during the alleged accident on 9.6.21 at about 12.50 A.M. in the night on the National Highway no.55 near Nadhara Chhack of Dhenkanal and the said Jagabandhu Sutar had infact valid driving license then.  Thus, by repudiating the claim of the complainant, the O.Ps no.1 & 2 have infact caused deficiency in their service.  Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

            From the discussions as made above, the complainant when filed this case, it appears to be definitely maintainable and thus, the complainant is entitled to a reasonable amount of relief as claimed.  Hence it is so ordered;

      ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against O.Ps no.3 & 4 and exparte against O.Ps no.1,2 & 5.  O.Ps no.1 & 2 are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  Thus, O.Ps no.1 & 2 are hereby directed to settle the insurance claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,22,508.72p with effect from 10.6.21 together with interest thereon @ 12% per annum till the total amount is quantified.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment as caused by them and also to bear the litigation expenses of the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.  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 26^th day of October,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                            Member