Date of filing:- 10/04/2015.
Date of Order:- 08/09/2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)
B A R G A R H
Consumer Complaint No.29 of 2015.
Sri Shantanu Kumar Mishra, aged about 47(forty seven)years, son of Late Binod Bihari Mishra, resident of Pada, Ps. Bijepur, Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... Complainant.
-V e r s u s-
M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., represented through its Branch Manager, Bargarh Branch, At/Po/Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... ..... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties.
For the Complainant:- Sri S.K.Bohara, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party:- Sri P.K.Mahapatra, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r(w).
Dt.08/09/2017 -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Sri P. K. Dash, Member:-
The Complainant being the resident of village Pada, under Bijepur Police Station has lodged this Complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act-1986 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. represented through its Branch Manager, Bargarh Branch, Bargarh. The gist of the Complaint is followed here under.
The Complaint contends that the Complainant being an educated unemployed to earn his livelihood has purchased one TATA Vista Vehicle having registration No. OD-17-A-5287 which was financed by the SBI, Bijepur. The vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Bargarh on payment of due premium vide Policy No. 345601/31/2014/714. That the vehicle while was moving from Pada to Sambalpur met with an accident near Barhagoda Chowk on Dt. 25/03/2014 causing multiple damage to its its body. The incident was duly informed to the Bargarh Police Station for which Bargarh Town, PS Case No. 748 Dt. 26/03/2014 was lodged. The matter was also immediately informed to the Opposite Party and a surveyor was deputed by the Opposite Party who obtained necessary photographs and documents of the vehicle.
Further the complaint contends that the insurance claim for the accident of vehicle along with estimate of repairing cost was submitted before the Opposite Party on Dt. 02/04/2014 by the Complainant which was unattended by the Opposite Party after repeated approach. Further the complaint reveals that as per the direction of Opposite Party the Complainant had repaired his damaged vehicle at M/s Maa Samleswari Automobiles, Ainthapali, Sambalpur i.e. authorised workshop of TATA Motors and the expenditure of repair was Rs.2,46,500/-(Rupees two lakh forty six thousand five hundred)only which was submitted before the Opposite Party along with all the bills and vouchers. That the Opposite Party had assured the Complainant to settle the claim very soon but did not act upon in any way violating the terms and conditions of the policy and ultimately repudiated the claim of the Complainant with holding the same for more than eight months. Such acts of Opposite Party are deficiency in rendering service to the Complainant for which the Complainant suffered both mentally and financially. The Complainant has sought for the direction of Forum to direct the Opposite Party to give insurance amount of Rs. 2,46,500/-(Rupees two lakh forty six thousand five hundred)only and compensation for Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only along with interest @ 18% (eighteen percent) per annum since the date of claim to the date of order. The Complainant seeks further direction of the Forum to direct the Opposite Party to give Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only towards mental and physical harassment, Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only towards litigation expense in total Rs. 3,87,000/-(Rupees three lakh eighty seven thousand)only along with interest @ 18%(eighteen percent) per annum.
The Complainant in support his contention relied upon the xerox copies of the following documents.
Xerox copy of insurance policy No.345601/31/2014/714.
Xerox copy of station dairy No. 748 Dt.26/03/2014.
Xerox copy of claim form Dt.02/04/2014.
Xerox copy of Estimate slips.
Xerox copy repairing and purchase bills.
Xerox copy of R.C.book.
Xerox copy of permit.
Xerox copy of fitness certificate.
Xerox copy of DL of the vehicle.
Xerox copy of finance statement.
Being noticed the Opposite Party appeared through his counsel and filed his version, denying allegations of the complaint.
The Opposite Party in his version contends that the Complainant does not become a Consumer to attract the provision enumerated U/s 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, hence the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Fora. So also the present dispute does not constitute a consumer dispute. Further version reveals that the Complainant was issued with passenger carrying commercial vehicle package insurance policy bearing No. 345601/31/2015/862 for the Tata India Vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-17-A-5287 which was valid from 18.00 hours of 27/05/2014 to midnight of Dt.26/05/2015. Further version contends that all insurance policy including the policy issued to the Complainant are subject to certain terms and conditions agreed to by the Parties upon which the liability of parties determined.
Further the Opposite Party in his version contends that as per terms of insurance policy person driving the vehicle at the time of accident must hold a valid and effective driving licence. That upon receiving information about the accident of Complainant's vehicle an independent qualified surveyor deputed to conduct spot survey and assessment of damage and later on Dt. 02/04/2014 when written information received from the Complainant the Opposite Party supplied him claim form and asked to submit all relevant papers and vehicular documents along with completed claim form and another Surveyor Er. Rabi Narayan Tripathy was deputed for final survey and loss assess of the accident vehicle. So also deputed advocate Surendra Kumar Panda to verify the genuineness of the documents including driving license of the driver and upon receipt of the completed claim Forum, survey reports and related paper it came to the knowledge of the Opposite Party that one Baruni Padhan was driving the vehicle at the time of accident having Driving license bearing No. OR-1719930008035 issued by R.T.A. Bargarh.
Further the Opposite Party in his version contends that upon receipt of report from Surveyors investigator and opinion of the concerned Licensing Authority, Bargarh the Opposite Party found that the driver of the alleged accident vehicle was authorized to drive “Light Motor Vehicle Non Trannsport and “Light Motor Vehicle Transport Goods” and was unauthorized to drive “Car Contact Carriage (CARCS)” the class of vehicle that the alleged vehicle was registered for and the Complainant has handed over his vehicle to a person having no effective Driving license. That the Opposite Party thus issued letter No. R/271/15 Dt. 27/02/2015 to the Complainant repudiating his claim and gave further opportunity to substitute his claim on the ground of repudiation before taking final decision. The Complainant in his reply stated that the driving license issued in favour of Baruni Padhan is absolutely genuine and legally tenable as the issuing authority has unnecessary added the word “Goods” after the word “transport” without following the provision of Central Motor vehicle Act 1988 as amended in 1994 and argued the Opposite Party to give him opportunity to get the matter clarified without imposing time limit and while the above request of the Complainant was under active consideration of the Opposite Party the present complaint has been filed before any decision/action is taken from the side of Opposite Party for which the complaint was premature without any cause of action to file the complaint.
Further the version of the Opposite Party contends in para-18(eighteen) that the Opposite Party has taken final decision in good faith and in para-18(eighteen) states that the Opposite Party had fully investigated into the matter and had issued letter of pre-repudiation, hence there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party to the Complainant and the present Complaint is not maintainable in the Consumer Fora. Again states in his version that this being a dispute of Civil nature require elaborate evidence for its scrutiny and disbursement on that score also this forum lacks jurisdiction in trying the complaint.
Further the Opposite Party in his version has denied the facts that the Complainant being an educated unemployed to earn his livelihood was plying the vehicle and that due to accident the vital mechanical and bodily part of the vehicle was damaged and the Opposite Party remained silent without taking action for realization of claim of the Complainant and that as per the direction of Opposite Party the Complainant had repaired the vehicle through authorized work shop of TATA Motors M/s Maa Samaleswari Automobiles, Ainthapali, Sambalpur and for which the Complainant has spent Rs. 2,46,500/-(Rupees two lakh forty six thousand five hundred)only and as per the direction of Opposite Party for its quick settlement and the Opposite Party did not take any step in the matter. Further the Opposite Party has denied the facts that the acts of the Opposite Party were grossly negligence and deficient in service and that the Opposite Party had illegally with hold the claim of the Complainant for more than eight months for which the Complainant suffered heavily both in financially and physically and thus the Opposite Party is liable to Compensate the Complainant the claim amount along with other compensation with interest claimed there over.
The Opposite Party thus prays the forum to dismiss the complaint.
The Opposite Party in support of his contention relied upon the Xerox copies of the following documents.
Xerox copy of insurance policy No.345601/31/2014/714 Dt.28/05/2013(three sheets).
Xerox copy of claim intimation and claim form Dt.26/03/2014(three sheets).
Xerox copy of SDE Dt.26/03/2014(one sheets).
Xerox copy of Driving Licence No. OR-1719930008035 Dt.20/03/1993(one sheet).
Xerox copy RC of Vehicle No.OD-17-A-5287 Dt.24/06/2013 (one sheet).
Xerox copy of Spot Survey Report of Er. Dhirendra Ku. Dash Dt.15/04/2014(four sheets).
Xerox copy of letters of O.P. To Er. R.N.Tripathy Dt.17/04/2014/Dt.29/04/2014(two sheets).
Xerox copy of letter of O.P. to Complainant Dt.25/04/2014(one sheet).
Xerox copy of Final Motor Survey Report of Dr. Rabi Narayan Tripathy Dt.19/05/2014 (three sheets).
Xerox copy of D.L. verification of Adv. Surendra Ku. Panda with enclosures Dt.07/08/2014 (four sheets).
Xerox copy of bill verification report of Adv. Surendra Ku. Panda with enclosures Dt.20/05/2014 (four sheets).
Xerox copy of letter of Bargarh branch of O.P. to Complainant Dt.26/09/2014(one sheet).
Xerox copy letter of Complainant to OP (one sheet).
Xerox copy of email of Division Office, Sambalpur of the O.P. to B.M., Bargarh Dt.26/02/2015 (one sheet).
Xerox copy of letter of O.P. to Complainant Dt.27/02/2015 (one sheet).
Gone through the entire case record pleadings of the parties and voluminous documents available on record so also perused the memo of arguments and citation filed by the Parties. The Forum found the issues likely to be decided in this case as follows:-
Whether the Complainant is a consumer under the Opposite Parties as per the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum ?
Whether the repudiation of claim of the Complainant by the Opposite Party on the ground of the driver, driving the vehicle at the time of accident holding the Driving license invalid and in effective to drive the class of vehicle is justified and whether is a deficiency in rendering service by the Opposite Party to the Complainant ?
For what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
In answering Issue No.1(one).
Admittedly the Complainant has insured his alleged vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-17A-5287 by paying the premium amount of the insurance policy bearing No. 345601/31/2014/714 which is a consideration money as per provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and the insurance was within validity period and accident took place on Dt. 25/03/2014 which revealed from the documents. So also the Complainant was a educated unemployed person, plying the vehicle to earn his livelihood as averred in his complaint was not disproved by the Opposite Party in any manner though cogent evidence hence as per the provision enumerated U/S 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act-1986, the Complainant is a consumer under the Opposite Party and the complaint is maintainable before this Forum. The issued No.1(one) is a answered affirmative.
In answering Issue No.2(two).
The Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the Complainant on the ground of the driver holding the Driving Licence of the class which was not valid and effective to drive the class of vehicle as per M.V.Act-1988. Upon perusal of the Driving License of the driver Baruni Padhan issued to him by the R.T.Authority, Bargarh for “Light Motor Vehicle” issued on Dt.20/03/1993 and “Light Motor Vehicle (GV)” issued on Dt.02/04/2009. As per central Motor Vehicle Act-1988 as amended in 1994 it is clearly held by the division bench of Hon'ble Justice of Supreme Court that “driver holding a license to drive a light motor vehicle (LMV) can drive vehicle irrespective of the fact whether it is used for a private purpose or for purpose of hire or reward or for carrying the goods in the said vehicle”. This is what is intended by the provision of the Act and the Amendment Act-54/1994. The vehicles weight of upto 7500 Kg are classified as Light Motor vehicle irrespective of any class of as vehicle as per the contention of Amendment Act-54 of 1994 in Central Motor Vehicle Act-1988. The Amendment Act settled all the legal position as to the class of driving license. As in the instant case the vehicle “TATA INDICA VISTA TDI AQUA” having weight of 1140Kg is in the “light motor vehicle class” and it is no importance that whether it is a car for contact carriage or not. Further the contention of version of the Opposite Party is para-19 states that letter of pre-repudiation was issued to the Complainant and the Complainant's request was under active consideration of the Opposite Party as averred in Para-17 while as in Para-18 the Opposite Party contends that in all good faith he has finally repudiated the claim of the Complainant. Hence the stand of the Opposite Party in repudiating the claim of the Complainant are all collusive to each other the decision cited by the Opposite Party in this case is not squarely applicable in this case. The discussion made here above as to the repudiation of the claim of the Complainant by the Opposite Party on the ground stated is unjustified and is certainly a deficiency in rendering service to the Complainant.
In answering Issue No.3(three).
In the light of the discussion made above the Complainant is entitle for the relief claim and as per the decision of the Forum for the just adjudication of the complaint.
Delving deep into the matter and owing to the evidence available on record and provision of law, the Forum Order as follows:-
O R D E R
The Opposite Party is directed to pay insurance claim amount of Rs.2,20,465/-(Rupees two lakh twenty thousand four hundred sixty five)only with interest @6%(six percent) per annum from date of filing of this case till the date of Order along with Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards compensation for physical harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses to the Complainant within thirty days from the receipt of this Order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @12% (twelve percent) per annum till actual date of payment.
Complaint allowed and disposed of accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
M e m b e r.
I agree, I agree,
(Ajanta Subhadarsinee) (Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
M e m b e r(w). P r e s i d e n t.
