Orissa

Cuttak

CC/1/2022

M/s Maa Mahalaxmi Industries - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B M Mohapatra & associates

16 Mar 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.01/2022

 

          M/s. Maa Mahalaxmi Industries,

          Proprietor,Reetanjali Sahoo,

          Plot No.183,Pochillima,Hinjilkot,

           Dist:Ganjam-761102.

          Branch Office-Manguli,PO/PS:Choudwar,

           Dist:Cuttack.                                                                       ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.       Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.,  2^nd floor,5,Janpath,Unit-3,

Opp. Ram Mandir,

                 Bhubaneswar-751001

                  Dist-Khurda

 

2.       M.D.RelianceGeneral Insurance Co.Ltd., 6^th floor,Oberai Commerz,

International Business Park,

Oberoi Garden City Off Western Express Highway,

Goregaon,Mimbai-400063 .                                                               ...Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    01.01.2022

Date of Order:  16.03.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. B.M.Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps              :            None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that she had purchased a Tata Truck bearing Regd. No.OD-07-AP-2173 by getting finance from O.P no.1 on 31.12.19.  The vehicle was insured vide insurance policy no.993492123340000296 .    On13.5.2021 due to failure of brake at KanjipaniGhati area, the truck of the complainant had met with an accident as a result of which the cabin of the truck alongwith the engine were fully damaged.  The complainant had made insurance claim accordingly but there was no response from the O.Ps who had insured the vehicle.  After running to them frequently a surveyor was deputed who had visited the spot and had also inspectedthe damaged vehicle of the complainant.  The vehicle was at the authorised service centre at Keonjhar with the name and style Samal Automobiles.  The O.P insurers did not accept the driving license as submitted by the complainant that at the nick of time her driver Nilakantha Yadav was driving her said truck.  According to them one Mukesh was driving the alleged truck but they did not accept that actually the person Mukesh is the same person whose good name is Nilakantha Yadav.  The claim of the complainant was repudiated and accordingly e. mail was sent to her.  The insurers had collected data from Kanjipani Police station that it was Nilakantha Yadav who was driving the alleged vehicle but had not settled the claim of the complainant for which she was forced to repair her truck by paying a sum of Rs.3,99,000/-.  The complainant by filing this case has claimed the said amount of Rs.3,99,000/- alongwith a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- towards compensation for her mental agony, legal expenses and the financial loss in her business as caused to her.

Together with her complaint petition the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove her case.

2.         Having not contested this case, O.Ps were set exparte vide order dt.11.7.2022.

3.         The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed?

PointNo.ii.

Out of the three points, point no.ii being the most pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

After going through the averments as made in the complaint petition together with the copies of documents as available in the case record, it is noticed that the truck belonging to the complainant bearing Regd. No.OD-07-AP-2173 had met with an accident on 13.5.21 at Kanjipani Ghati area due to brake failure.  It is the contention of the complainant that her driver Nilakantha Yadav alias Mukesh was driving her truck at the nick of time.  The copy of FIR as submitted alongwith the complaint petition goes to show that one Sangram Keshari Swain has submitted his written report to the OIC,Kanjipani P.S of Keonjhar regarding the accident where he had mentioned that Nilakantha Yadav was driving the said truck bearing Regd. No.OD-07-AP-2173 which belongs to the complainant of this case and the said truck had met with an accident at KanjipaniGhati area on 13.5.2021.

From the evidence/copy of documents as available in this case, it goes to show that undoubtedly there was accident of the alleged truck at Kanjipani Ghati area of Keonjhar district on 13.5.21 and the said truck was insured by the O.Ps which was valid during the said accident.  The claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that someone other than Nilakantha Yadav was driving the alleged truck during the occurrence.  Complainant has stated that the O.P insurers are mistaken because, according to them, one Mukesh was driving her truck during the accident but she clarifies that the said Mukesh is otherwise known as Nilakantha Yadav and thus Nilakantha Yadav and Mukesh are one and the same person.  Law is very clear now-a-days and as per the decisions of our Hon’ble Higher Forums, the insurers cannot repudiate the claim on the ground of a particular driver not driving the vehicle.  Moreso, here in this case having not contested, the O.P insurers were set exparte.  Thus, from the unchallenged evidence as available in this case record, this Commission comes to a conclusion that when there was valid insurance of the truck of the complainant which had met with an accident at Kanjipani Ghati area of Keonjhar district on 13.5.2021 and when she had put-forth her claim to that effect, by repudiating her claim the O.Ps are found to be definitely deficient in their service towards the complainant of this case.  Accordingly, this point goes in favour of the complainant of this case.

Point no.i& iii.

From the above discussions, case of the complainant is undoubtedly maintainable and she is ofcourse entitled to get her claim amount from the O.Ps.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                ORDER

The case is allowed exparte against the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are thus directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in total to the complainant in order to get all her expenses alongwith compensation towards her mental agony within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 16^th day of March,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.   

 

                                                                                                                        Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                    President

 

 

                                                                                                     Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                         Member