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.