Orissa

Rayagada

CC/124/2014

Smt. Lalita Ataka, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Ajit Motors, Dealer of Honda Motor cycles - Opp.Party(s)

10 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, RAYAGADA

 

C.C. Case  No.124/ 2014.

                                      

P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep kumar Dash, LL.B ,                                   President.

Smt. Ch. Nirmala Kumari Raju, LLB,                               Member

 

Smt. Lalita Ataka, W/o Pradeep Pedenti, Keutaguda, Antamada, J.K.Pur,Po/Dist. Rayagada, 

                                                                                                ……….Complainant

                                                Versus

1. The Manager, M/s Ajit Motors, Dealer of Honda Motor Cycle and agent of the Goode Life Insurance coverage for the two wheelers.
2. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Rayagada.
3. The Jayadev Muduli, Bolero Owner, Rayagada.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ………Opp.Parties

 For the complainant :  In person.

For the Opp.Party  No.1: Sri P.Ch.Dash & Associates,Rayagada

For the O.p No.2 & 3:  Set exparte

JUDGMENT

            The gist of the complaint   is that  the complainant  has purchased one Hero Honda  motor bike from the O.p 1 and it was having insurance coverage vide Policy No.351000731126200112912 valid from 12.4.12 to 11.4.13. On 15.10.12 while the complainant was returning from Rayagada to their house  near K.N.K Patrol pump  one Bolero No.18-B-7509  dashed  the motor cycle  of the complainant  causing damage  to the motor cycle and grievous injury to the complainant and another. Immediately the complainant was shifted  to the hospital at Rayagada  and matter of accident was reported to the Police on the very day at 7.35 P.m.  The police investigated the matter and seized the Boalro  and the motorbike from the spot.  The complainant sustained injuries and hospitalities  and could not intimate the fact of accident to the O.ps  immediately  and  after his treatment the complainant collected all the documents and police report  and placed his claim for the reimbursement  of the repair charges for the said motor cycle through O.p 1   who has got the vehicle insured but  the O.P 1 refused to accept the claim stating that  when he preferred the claim there is no insurance coverage but his own coverage  is valid till 11.4.2015 policy coverage is Rs.18,345/-.  The vehicle met with accident on15.10.12 and  the complainant was hospitalized for six months and the said vehicle was  with the custody of policy and it was given to him  as per the order of the court  after he recovered from the ailment. So the objection of O.P 1  is an after though and unfair trade practice and against the promise made by him. Hence, prayed  to direct the O.P 1  to give the benefit covered under the  policy  and O.p 3 be directed to   the repair work  of the accident motor bike  immediately  and the O.p 2 be directed to reimburse the said charges to O.p 1  or to the complainant  as the case may be and  for unfair trade practice  imposed heavy penalty  and for causing mental agony and financial loss the complainant may be awarded with monetary compensation   and cost of litigation and other relief. Hence, this case.

                        Being noticed, the Opp.Party  1 appeared through their counsel and files written version . The O.p 2 & 3 remained absent and they have not filed  written version and as such the O.p 2 & 3 were set exparte. It  is submitted  that  the vehicle of the complainant was insured for the period 12.4.12 to 11.4.13 and the  vehicle was  under custody of IIC, Chandili and it was released  on 26.7.13 and the vehicle was  sent  to workshop  for repair after expiry of the insurance . No paper were submitted to the O.p 1 hence  they have no knowledge about the expiry of insurance at the time of receiving the said vehicle. However the O.p 1 has submitted the fact  to the Insurance Company  office at Jeypore  through email and requested them to consider the case  as insurance was enforce at the time of accident.  Hence, prayed to exclude from this case .    

                                                            FINDINGS

            We perused  the complaint petition and documents filed by the parties and heard  argument from both the parties. It is admitted fact that the vehicle in question was   insured with Opp.Party and vehicle met with an accident within the period of insurance. It is the case of the complainant that in spite of having valid insurance, the Opp.Party has repudiated the claim  on the ground that  at the time of claim there was no  insurance coverage. But it is  admitted by the O.p 1 that at the time of accident there was insurance coverage and as the complainant was admitted in the hospital for long six months. he could not produced his claim papers before the O.ps and after his recovery from his ailment he produced before the O.p 1 from whom he has taken the motor bike  and the O.p 1 has made insurance  of the bike through O.p 2. As the O.p 2 & 3 were absent and they did not prefer to file written version, we remain in dark regarding the facts of repudiation of the  claim of the complainant.   After going through the documents and version filed by the O.p 1  it is clear that when the bike met with  accident  the insurance coverage was exist  but the complainant submitted his claim after expiry of the insurance coverage to which the O.p 2 can not deny and cannot repudiate the claim of the complainant which is not tenable in the eye of law. The O.p 2 has to pay the insurance amount to the complainant  as applicable  Hence, it is ordered.                                                          ORDER

                        The  O.P – 2 National Insurance Company Ltd.  is  ordered  to    pay the Insurance amount as applicable to the complainant  and the O.p  1  is directed to  repair the motor bike  and  restore the same in its old condition  with perfect running condition immediately and for unfair trade practice played by the O.p 2 in repudiating the claim. the complainant is entitled to get Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation of Rs.1000/- which shall be paid by the O.p2 along with the insurance amount to the complainant  and the O.p 3 is also ordered to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and litigation charges to the complainant within  thirty days of receipt of this order failing   execution proceeding will be initiated  U/s 25 & 27 of the C.P.Act for realization of the amount.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this 29^th     day of September ,2015 under the seal     and signature of this forum.

                        Supply the  copy of order free of cost to the parties.

 

Member                                                                                               President

            Documents relied upon:

            By the complainant:

1. Copy of the documents  pertaining to the accident.                                                                                                 

By the Opp.Party: Nil

•