Orissa

Jajapur

CC/103/2015

Susanta Kumar Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

H.K.Pradhan

29 Jan 2018

ORDER

   IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                     

                                              Dated the 29th day of January,2018.

                                                      C.C.Case No.103 of 2015

Susanta Ku.Behera  S/O Krushna Ch.Behera 

Vill/P.O. Rajendrapur,P.S.Kuakhia

Dist.-Jajpur .  

                                                                                                                        ……....Complainant.                                                                  

                   (Versus)

1.S.B.I,General Insurance Co.Ltd,Represented through its

Branch Manager,191,Kharvel Nagar,Unit-111,adjacent to

Exhibition Ground,Kharvela Nagar,Bhubaneswar, Dt.Khurda

2 S.B.I, Kuakhia Branch,Kuakhia,Represented through its

 Branch Manager,At/P.O/PS.Kuakhia, Dt.Jajpur.

                                                                                                                            ……………..Opp.Parties.                  

For the Complainant:                                   Sri H.K.Pradhan, Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties : No.1                            Sri S.K.Mishra, Sri R.K.Mohanty,Advocates

For the Opp.parties: No.2                            Sri P.K. Daspattnaik, Advocate.            

                                                                                                 Date of order:   29. 01. 2018.

SHRI  PITABAS MOHANTY , MEMBER  .

Deficiency in Insurance service is the grievance of the petitioner.

            The fact relevant as per complaint petition as stated by the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased a  “ MARUTI   SWIFT DISEL CAR ‘ /vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-02-F-0433  for his personal use with the financial assistance from O.P.no.2 on the strength of an hypothecation agreement. The said vehicle was insured with O.P.no.1 vide policy no. 0000000000859120 on dt.27.3.13 and was valid from the mid night 25.3.13 to 24.3.14  and the IDV  value has been fixed Rs.6,71,120/ .

            During the  subsistence of the policy period on dt.22.08.2013  the vehicle met with an accident when the petitioner came from Jajpur town to his village near the Baruhan  petrol pump and to avoid such accident  the petitioner moved the vehicle left side for which the vehicle drowned into the water  and completely damaged .Thereafter the petitioner lodged the FIR before  Jajpur Sadar police station  on 23.8.13  and immediately informed to the insurer O.P.no. 1 , subsequently lodged the claim  on the same day and also obtained a estimate report for repair of the  above vehicle from authorized service center who  calculated a sum of  Rs.7,28,365.74p/-

            As against such claim from the side of the petitioner the O.P.no.1 did not pay any heed towards the claim of the petitioner rather harassed him about one year  and after one year violating  the  terms and conditions settled the claim amount  on cash loss basis a sum of Rs3,50,000/ i.e on 28.4.14 in favor of the petitioner which is  without knowledge of the petitioner  and the  same  amount has been  transferred  to the  loan account of the petitioner  laying  with the  O.P.no.2 . As a result the purpose of claim is not fulfilled . Thereafter the petitioner rushed to the office  of O.P.no. 1 and requested him to settle the  rest amount of the  claim  of Rs..3,21,125/-  as per balance ID Value .But the O.P.no.1  did not respond  to the  request of the  petitioner . As a result  for clearing   the loan outstanding of the above vehicle in time  from O.P.no2  the petitioner has  no extra  financial source to repay the vehicle as per the  estimate cost.

            Accordingly the petitioner  filed the present dispute with the prayer to direct no.1  to pay the balance  claim amount  of Rs.3,21,120/-  as per ID value along with  pay Rs.60,000/- for mental agony and litigation  cost.

            After notice  the learned advocate  for the O.P  entered into appearance and subsequently filed their written version  .The O.P.no.1 has  taken the stand in the written version that the vehicle of the petitioner was under hypothecation agreement with O.P.no2 and there was outstanding loan of Rs.5,39,234/ on the petitioner against the vehicle  and since the petitioner did not turn up to receive the estimated  cash loss of R3,50,000 / the same has been paid to the financer bank on 28.4.2014  after obtaining full and final disbursement  voucher from the financer bank as it is the settled  principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble  Supreme Court  reported in 2009(1)CPC-1 decided in the matter of M/S  Krishna Foods pvt Ltd Vrs New India Assurance co ltd) holding that the financer is entitled to get the entire claim amount from the insurer in case of the total loss of financed  hypothecated vehicle  .Therefore no illegality  done to the petitioner by O.P.no.1 by repaying the outstanding loan amount  to the financer   on cash loss basis.

            That the financer  bank has received Rs.3,50,000 as full and final claim in respect of the  damaged  vehicle of the petitioner and  further claim of the petitioner for the same  damage deserves no merit . The full and final claim discharge voucher is filed herewith. That regarding the statement  made under colum-3 of the petition , the O.P  has deputed his surveyor on the same  day of receipt of the claim intimation. The surveyor  taken   photographs  of the damaged  car of the petitioner standing in front of Baruhan  petrol pump and assessed the loss and accordingly the same has been satisfied in consultation with the petitioner. That regarding the estimated / final bill  submitted by the petitioner those bills  are created and in no way connected  to the  damage of his vehicle. That there is no deficiency of service by the O.P.no.1 as the claim has been processed in due time in consultation with the petitioner and he was in  close contact with  the O.P  for settlement of his claim  and the claim has been settled fully and finally with his knowledge. That the amount of further claim of Rs.3,21,125/ is completely imaginary and misconceived .The complainant is not liable  to get the same  since his  financer has already admitted to receive the full and final claim amount  of the  damage claim of the vehicle of the petitioner from this O.P and his further claim is  baseless and deserves no merit.

            In view of the above  situation the present dispute  should be dismissed with cost since it has no merit.

            The O.P.no.2 has  taken the stand in the written version  that the case is not maintainable   in the eye of law since  on the request of complainant borrower, O.P bank sanctioned a personal loan of Rs.5,80,000/- in favour of the petitioner to  purchase of a Car for his own use. It was stipulated that the loan amount would be repaid on 84 equal monthly installments of Rs.9845/- each. After execution of different security documents as per banks standard money was advanced to him for purchase of a Car. After purchase of the Car   under hire purchase agreement the petitioner insured it with O.P and used to pay the EMI  to  O.P bank regularly till July,2013. But unfortunately on 22.8.13 the said vehicle met a major accident at Maheswarpur i.e in front of Indian Oil Petrol Pump in the Kuakhia, Jajpur Town main road as a result of which the said Car turned into road side pond and was completely damaged. The petitioner immediately reported about the said occurrence to the O.P  bank as well as O.P  Insurance company. Thereafter on 23.08.13 the petitioner informed the matter to the local police station at Jajpur Sadar . On the  same day with the assistance of O.P  complainant lodged his insurance claim to O.P Insurance company claiming total loss of his vehicle due to said  accident.

            The Insurance Company on 28.04.2014 deposited the claim amount of Rs.3,50,000/- in the loan account of petitioner, after due intimation to the petitioner. In the above circumstances the O.P bank has got no role to play. As Insurance company is the indemnifier of petitioner accordingly the O.P  insurance company assessed  the loss of petitioner as Rs.3,50,000/- and deposited the amount in the loan account of the petitioner , as the vehicle is purchased under hire purchase agreement from O.P Bank  and the bank has got first charge over the hypothecated vehicle.

            In the above circumstances, the O.P  is in no way liable or deficient in providing services to the petitioner.

            On the date of hearing we heard the argument from the learned advocate  for both the  sides. After perusal of the  documents  filed from both  the sides we observed that :

1.it is undisputed fact that the alleged vehicle financed by O.P.no.2 and insured with O.P.no..1 and during subsistence of policy the vehicle met with an accident and drowned  into the water .

2 it is also the fact that the petitioner lodged the claim before the O.P.no.1 immediately  and O.P.no.1 deputed his surveyor and settled the claim amount  on cash loss basis a sum of Rs3,50,000/- and credited the same to the financer of the vehicle (op.2).with the knowledge of the petitioner.

3.The O.P..no.1 taken the plea  that the financer received  the claim as full and final settlement of the damage vehicle and accordingly has  issued discharged voucher .  On the other hand the petitioner has filed the present dispute alleging  that the op.1 settled the claim as per cash loss basis and they are  liable to pay differential amount of  Rs.3,21,125/ as pr ID value .

In the peculiar circumstance we verified  the documents in details filed  from both  sides and observed  that in the record:

1.servicce estimate report of the above vehicle of Sky  Automobiles ( authorized service center of the above alleged  vehicle comes to a sum of Rs.7,28,365/ for repair of the above vehicle .

2.Bill of Akram Automobiles ,BBSR shown as total expenditure of the alleged vehicle for repair was Rs. 5,31,155/- by the petitioner .

3. Affidavit from the side of the petitioner.

4.Discharge voucher from O.P.no..2 regarding full and final settlement of the claim.

5. settlement voucher from  O.P.no.1.

In the circumstances it is our considered view that when the petitioner submitted estimate report of authorized service center of Rs.7,28,365/- of the alleged vehicle and already submitted  repair expenditure bill of Akram automobiles, BBSR a sum of  Rs. 5,31,155/ hence the O.P.no.1 is liable to pay the balance amount as per bills submitted by the petitioner.

More over in case the  claim amount will be  credited to the financer then we make it clear that at the time of hypothecation of the vehicle though the 1^st right settle claim amount is the financer but it must be credited  with the  knowledge of the petitioner but we do not  come across with any evidence from the side of the O.P.no..1 that the insurer has informed the same to the petitioner  before  crediting  to O.P.no.2/ financer . As  regards the  discharge voucher issued by the financer of the above vehicle mentioning   the  full and final of the above claim ,  it is our considered view that it  is  only the right of the petitioner to do this but  not the financer .On the other  hand the O.P.no.1 did not produced any surveyor estimate  report regarding repair  assessment of the alleged vehicle as a result the O.P.no.1 committed patent deficiency of service on settlement of the Insurance claim of the  above alleged vehicle .

Hence this Order

            The dispute is allowed against O.P.no.1 and dismissed against O.P.no.2

            The O.P.no.1 is directed to pay the balance repairing amount of Rs.1,81,155/- as per bills submitted by the petitioner within one month after receipt of this order ,failing which such award amount carry 9 % interest   from the date of filing of the present dispute till  its realization.. No cost           

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29th day of January,2018. under my hand and seal of the Forum.