Adv. For the Complainant: -  Counseling  Centre

 Adv. For O.P                         :-  Sri P.K.Biswal                      

 Date  of filing of the Case  :-20.08.2019

Date of Order                       :-17.03.2020

    JUDGMENT

   Sri A.K.Purohit, President                                                            

1.         The case of the complainant is that, she is the owner of HYU i20 Active CRDi SX car bearing registration No. OD-02-Y-8641 which was insured with the O.P. vide insurance policy No. 346090/31/2018/460. The said insurance policy is under private car package policy which is valid from 21.10.17 to 20.10.18. During subsistence of the said policy on dated 5.8.18 at about 8 P.M. the car was got capsized while the car was driven by the husband of the complainant. To this the husband of the complainant reported before the Titlagarh P.S. on dated 6.8.18 and submitted his insurance claim before the O.P. on dated 7.8.18. After receiving the intimation the O.P. deputed a surveyor for assessing loss and after completion of the spot visit by the surveyor the complainant shifted the car to Aakash Deep Hyundai for repairing. The complainant had spent Rs. 317888/- for total repairing cost and submitted the repairing bill alongwith money receipt before the O.P. for settlement of her claim but the O.P. settled the claim for an amount of Rs. 198000/- which is lesser than the actual loss and hence the complainant protested the same and denied to accept the said amount. The complainant alleges that, settlement of the insurance claim by the O.P. for a lesser amount is not in accordance of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence the complaint.

2.       The O.P. contested the case by filing his written version. The O.P. denied all the allegations of the complainant and submitted that, the complainant repaired the vehicle without the knowledge of the O.P. and fails to submit all required documents. Further the O.P. submitted that, the complainant demanded the claim amount beyond the scope of the policy conditions and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

3.     Heard both the parties. Perused the complaint petition, written version and documentary evidence available on record. It is evident from the certificate of the IIC Titlagarh P.S. that, the vehicle of the complainant was got capsized on dated 5.8.18 at about 8 P.M. due to imbalance. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant had taken the insurance policy from the O.P. which was valid from 21.10.17  to 20.10.18. Therefore it is evident that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy. With these material available on record the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the loss assessed by him on the basis of the repairing bill or not.

4.         It is seen from the certificate of the IIC Titlagarh P.S. filed by the complainant that, due to the accident the front portion body side mirror and body of the engine front glass of the vehicle has been damaged. This shows that the accident is not a serious accident. The invoice summery issued by the servicing center shows so many damages which were replaced. Therefore the documentary evidence filed by the complainant cannot be said to be the actual loss of the vehicle in the accident. The complainant has also not filed the affidavit evidence of her husband who was driving the vehicle by the time of the accident. In such circumstances the report of the surveyor is very important. Although the parties have admitted that a surveyor was deputed for assessing the loss neither parties have produce the report of the surveyor. Therefore in the absence of the surveyor report it is not possible to come to a conclusion regarding the actual loss and damage caused to the vehicle of the complainant.

5.         The complainant has admitted in her complaint petition that she has denied the claim amount settled by the O.P. Therefore the O.P. has acted on the claim application filed by the complainant after the accident and settled the claim and the complainant has failed to prove any shortcoming against the O.P.  and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

                                     Accordingly the case of the complainant is dismissed.

                               Pronounced in the open Forum to-day the 17^th day of March 2020.

                                 Sd/-                                                                                             Sd/-

                             (S.Rath)                                                                                    (A.K.Purohit)  

                            MEMBER.                                                                                   PRESIDENT