Orissa

Anugul

CC/114/2014

Kiran Kumar Naik - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

25 May 2023

ORDER

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
ANGUL
 
Complaint Case No. CC/114/2014
( Date of Filing : 12 Dec 2014 )
 
1. Kiran Kumar Naik
Qtr No-E/67, Samal Barage,Talcher
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Angul Branch,Angul
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Saroj Kumar Sahoo PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MS. Sasmita Kumari Rath MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 25 May 2023
Final Order / Judgement

Sri S.K.Sahoo,President.

            The petitioner has filed the present complainant U/s. 12 of C.P Act 2019.

2.       The case of the complainant is that he is the registered owner  of the Tipper bearing Regd. No. OR 19 A 9157. The said vehicle was insured vide policy No.163200/31/05/630000/1389 dtd.01.06.2005. The complainant has paid the requisite premium of Rs.27265/- and the policy was valid from 29.07.2005 to the mid night of 28.07.2006. The complainant had engaged Budhia Jena as driver and Mangulu Jena as helper in his Tipper. On 14.05.2006 both the driver and helper took the vehicle from the complainant for transportation of Iron ore from Badbil. The vehicle passed through Samal Barrage gate on 14.05.2006 on payment of requisites Toll fee and receipt No. 41 was issued. As the said truck did not return the complainant lodged  F.I.R at Samal P.S on 22.05.2006 but no action was taken on his report. So the complainant filed a ICC case No.70 of 2006 against the said driver and helper before learned S.D.J.M, Talcher. On the direction of learned S.D.J.M,Talcher the OIC registered P.S case No.20 on 23.03.2007. It was registered as G.R case No.179 of 2007. On 22.06.2014 O.I.C, Samal PS submitted final form which was accepted by the learned S.D.J.M, Talcher .

          After getting certified copy of the GR case on 23.07.2014, the complainant requested the OP to settle the claim. The complainant had also reported the matter to the office of the OPs on 15.05.2006.No  action was taken by the opp.parties ,for which on 03.09.2014 the  complainant  issued  a legal notice to the opp.parties through his  advocate  with  a  request  to settle  his claim within seven days ,failing which he  will  be  constrained  to  file  the case . In spite  of  such notice to the opp.parties they did not  settle  the claim of the  complainant which  caused mental agony, pain, and harassment to the  complainant. Hence this case.

3.       Notice  was  issued  to    the opp.party No.1 through  Regd. post with A.D on 16.12.2014. The notice was issued to opp.party No.2  through  process of  the office of the Commission which was received by him  in  person on 17.12.2014. The  A.D of  opp.party No.1  is  available in the  case  record.

          Learned  counsel  Sri U.S.Mishra & P.Behera appeared on behalf  of   National Insurance Company Ltd., on execution of  V.nama by Kalyan Kumar Pattanaik, Divisional Manager. Although the Learned  Counsel for  the  opp.parties  took time  to  file show  cause , no  show cause   is  filed. So the  case was posted  for hearing by  order dtd. 21.09.2021 .No evidence was  adduced by both the parties. The  opp.parties did not participate in the  hearing  of the  case.

4.       From the  materials  on record  it is  clear that the  complainant is the  registered owner of  a Tipper bearing Regd. No. OR 19A 9157  which was insured  vide policy  No. 163200/31/05/630000/1389 which  was  valid  from  29.07.2005 to the  mid night  of 28.07.2006 .The  complainant has  filed  the   photo copy of  registration and certificate of  fitness, from which it  transpires that the  complainant  is the  registered owner  the  aforesaid  vehicle  and  the  said vehicle  was found fit  till 06.08.2006.The  photo copy  of  the insurance policy issued by  the  opp.parties is  also  filed .On perusal  of the  said  documents it also appears  that  the  vehicle was insured  from  29.07.2005  to mid night of  28.07.2006 .It  further transpires  from the said  document   that the  opp.parties  are liable  to  indemnify the loss caused to the  complainant  in respect anyone accident  as  per Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and  in respect of  anyone claim  or  series of  claims  arising out of  one events for  Rs. 7,50,000.00.

5.       From the  complaint petition it  is clear  that  on 14.05.2006 the driver and helper took  the vehicle  from the  complainant  for  transportation of Iron Ore from  Barbil but thereafter they did not  return along with the  truck, for which the  complainant  submitted  a report  at Samal P.S on 22.05.2006.On perusal  of  the photo copy  of    the  extract of  Station Diary entry No. 450 dtd. 22.05.2006 ,it  appears  that  at 9 A.M  the  complainant  reported  about the  non-return  of his vehicle after it  was entrusted to  the  driver  and  the  helper. From the  photo copy of  the  certified  copies of order sheets and other documents of G.R.Case No. 179 of  2007  in the file  of  Learned S.D.J.M ,Talcher  it is also clear  that  the  vehicle  was taken  by  the  drive r and  the   helper  from the complainant on 14.05.2006  and  when  it  did not  return to the  complainant  he  lodged a report at Samal P.S on 22.05.2006 but no  step was taken   by  police. Due  to  inaction of  Samal Police  the  complainant  was  forced  to  file  I.C.C 70 of 2006 and  on the direction  of  the  court  the  OIC  Samal P.S registered the  FIR  in G.R.Case No. 179  of  2007  , took-up investigation and filed  charge sheet after closure of the   investigation  on 30.11.2012. From order No. 13 dtd. 22.06.2014  passed in G.R.Case No.179  of 2007 it   is  also clear  that  the  Learned S.D.J.M,Talcher  accepted  the  final  form submitted by  the I.O and  the case  was dropped. It  is also clear  from the  copy of the  charge sheet  submitted by the I.O  on 30.10.2012 that  the  fact alleged in the F.I.R is  true  but there is no clue. So  after analyzing  the materials on record  it  can  be  safely said  that  the  Tipper  of the  complainant  bearing Regd. No. OR 19A 1957 was subjected to theft.

6.       At paragraph-7 of  his  complaint  petition the  complainant has  clearly mentioned  that on 15.05.2006 he had  reported about  the  theft of the  vehicle  in the office of the opp.parties. From the  pleader notice issued  by the  complainant through  his  advocate  on 30.09.2014 it  also appears  that  after disposal of the  criminal case , he has requested the  opp.parties  to settle  his   claim. From the  photo copy  of  the postal receipts dtd. 06.09.2014 filed  by the  complainant it  appears that he had  issued  pleader notice  to  both  the opp.parties through Regd. post with A.D .No reply  has been submitted  by the  opp.parties to the  complainant in reply to the said  notice.

7.       It  is  clear  from  the materials  on record  that after  searching  of the  vehicle  for  some times at Barbil when he could  not  trace the vehicle,  the driver  and  the  helper  he  submitted  the   F.I.R at Samal P.S on 22.05.2006. So with all promptness when the  complainant  could  not  able  to  trace the vehicle , reported about the occurrence to the  office  of the opp.parties  on 15.05.2006.  Admittedly the opp.parties did not file their  show  cause after  receipt of the  notice from this  authority  nor  contested the  case .So  the  allegations made by the  complainant  is  admitted  by the opp.parties. As the  vehicle was subjected to theft  and  covered by the insurance   policy the complainant  is  entitled  to get  the  claim  as per  the terms and conditions  of the  policy. From the photo copy  of  the  insurance policy it  appears that  the  total  IDV value  of the  vehicle was  Rs.11,13,500.00 ,when  it  was insured by the opp.parties. The  opp.parties  have not  objected to  such claim of the  complainant. There is  deficiency in service by the opp.parties as they did not  settle  the claim of the  complainant.

8.       Hence order :-

: O R D E R :

          The case be  and the same is  allowed exparte against both the opp.parties. Both the opp.parties  are directed  to  pay an amount of Rs.11,13,500.00 (Rupees Eleven Lakh Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred ) only  to the  complainant within one month  of  receipt of  the order from this  Commission, failing  the  complainant  is  entitled to  get  interest  @ 7% p.a. till payment  is made. He  is   not  entitled  to  any  other claim. 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Saroj Kumar Sahoo]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MS. Sasmita Kumari Rath]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.