Orissa

Cuttak

CC/66/2018

Prakhipta Kumar Patra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Senior Branch Manager,Oriental Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R K Pattanaik & associates

31 May 2022

ORDER

 

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

                                                                C.C.No.66/2018

Prakhipta Kumar Patra,

S/O:Khirod Chandra Patra,

Res. Of Sikharpur,Upar Sahi,

P.O:College Square,P.S:Chauliaganj,

Dist:Cuttack.                                                                                      ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.        Senior Branch Manager,

Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

City Branch Office-II,Link Road,

Dist:Cuttack.

 

2.        The Authorised Officer,

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,

Service Centre,’Thapar House’,25,Brabourne Road,

Kolkata-700001.

 

3.        The Claims Manager,

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Claims Service Centre,

75,Budha Nagar,Bhubaneswar,Dist:Khurda.

 

4.       The Grievance Redressal Officer,

Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

Grievance Redressal Office,Oriental House,

A-25/27,Asaf Ali Road,New Delhi-110002....Opp. Parties.

                       

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    22.06.2018

Date of Order:  31.05.2022

 

For the complainant:            Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.       :                  Mr. A.A.Khan,Adv. & Associates

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                                                              

            The case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from the complaint petition is that the complainant is the son of Late Pravati Patra who was the policy holder in respect to the insurance of the vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-05M-2259 wherein O.P  No.1 was the insurer.  The said vehicle was registered on 10.2.2016 which was effective from 1.2.16 to 10.2.17 midnight vide policy No.345105/31/2016/6123.  In the renewed policy, the vehicle was valued at Rs.21,46,333/-.  On 17.4.2016 the said vehicle met with an accident causing damage to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- for which FIR was lodged at Dharmasala Police Station.  Claim was placed before the O.P No.3 who is the Claims Manager but astonishingly through the letter dt.7.12.16 O.P No.3 had repudiated the claim on the ground of non-disclosure of material facts at the time of renewal.  It was indicated in the repudiation letter that the vehicle was under hypothecation with HDFC bank and was not allowed to transfer the vehicle in the name of the legal heirs until closure of the loan and again in spite of the efforts of the complainant, the claim was repudiated vide letter dt.14.3.17.  It is further claimed that at the inception of the previous policy, Pravati Patra was alive but subsequently when the renewal was made; it was done at the instance of agent/broker of the Insurance Company namely Prasana Kumar Das.  The Insurance Company had not asked to produce the information about the death of the said Pravati Patra.  The complainant has further clarified that Late Pravati Patra when alive, the previous insurance policy was  recorded and her death subsequently will never be a bar for claiming damages in case of a vehicular accident since because the vehicle was insured and not the person who was owner of the vehicle.  It is further averred by the complainant that when the premium for the said policy was accepted, it is an agreement promising to indemnify the loss in case of accident or damage.  Thus the complainant claims that the O.Ps are estopped from taking such vexatious pleas.  As such the complainant has prayed to direct the O.Ps for paying a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- alongwith P.I & F.I @ 12% per annum till the date of disbursement and also to such other relief to which the complainant may be found to be entitled and to allow the application with cost.

2.         On the other hand, the O.Ps have contested this case and have jointly filed their written version.  According to their written version, the complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.  There was no deficiency in service as alleged.  All the O.Ps have harped regarding the non-disclosure of the fact that the person against whom the policy is to be effected had died before commencement of the risk which amounts to misrepresentation of material fact and the policy became void from its inception or renewal.  Of course, the O.Ps admit about the policy of the complainant which was renewed with effect from 11.2.16 to midnight 10.2.17 and stress that the insured had died on 10.1.16.  They also admit about the accident and damage to the vehicle on 17.4.16 and about the report of the deputed surveyor namely Dillip Kumar Mohanty who had made assessment of loss and submitted his report wherein he had assessed the loss to be Rs.3,00,000/- on 25.11.16.  But according to the O.Ps, when Pravati Patra had died, this policy being a contract is void abnitio and accordingly the compliant petition being devoid of any merit is liable  to be rejected with cost.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made out in the complaint petition and from the written version, this Commission feels it proper to settle the following issues to arrive at a proper conclusion in this case.

i.          Whether the case as filed is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether the complainant had any cause of action to file this case?

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

            iv.        Whether the O.P had adopted any unfair trade practice?

            v.         Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed?

Issues No.3 & 4.

            For the sake of convenience issues no.3 & 4 are taken up together first for consideration here in this case.  It is admitted that there was insurance policy executed in between the O.Ps and Late Pravati Patra.  It is also admitted that the said policy was renewed.  It is admitted fact that Pravati Patra had died.  Dispute arose when the insured vehicle in question met with an accident on 17.4.2016 which is within the existence of the policy and when the complainant being the legal heir/beneficiary of the insured deceased Pravati Patra had made the claim for the damage occurred.  The damage was to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-.  As it appears, the O.Ps had deputed a surveyor namely Dillip Kumar Mohanty who had made his survey report thereby assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- but the O.Ps have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the plea that Prativa Patra who had entered into the contract of insurance had died.  When the renewal of the policy was made, now it is to be seen here in this case that if by not disclosing the death of said Parativa Patra, the claim as made can be repudiated.  While going through the complaint petition, it is seen that the complainant has mentioned that the renewal of the policy was made through one agent of the Insurance Company namely Prasana Kumar Das.  Of course, the said agent has not been examined here in this case.  But while perusing the copy of the insurance policy as filed by the O.Ps of this case; it is noticed that the name of the said agent Prasana Kumar Das bearing Broker No.BA0000055359 is reflected therein.  Thus when the agent had renewed the policy of the complainant, it is felt by this Commission that the said agent should have enquired about the policy holder while preparing the renewal policy.  That apart, here it is to be seen that whether it was Late Pravati Patra or her vehicle which   was insured.  It is quite clear that the vehicle of the Pravati Patra was insured and not the said deceased Praavati Patra.  Thus repudiation of the claim as made by the O.Ps in this case does not appear to be legal.  Moreso, while perusing the order of Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7009 of 2008 arising out of SLP(C) No.4301 of  2006 in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Santro Devi and Ors., it is noticed that the facts and circumstances of the said case is squarely applicable to the present case in hand and as such it can be firmly concluded here that there was deficiency in service and the O.Ps by repudiating the claim have practised unfair trade.  Accordingly these two important issues are answered against the O.Ps.

Issues No.1 & 2.

            From the above discussions, it can be safely concluded here that the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable and the complainant had definite cause of action to file this case.  Accordingly these two issues are answered in the affirmative.

Issue No.5.

            From the above discussions, this Commission holds that the complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps.   The O.Ps who are jointly and severally liable here in this case are directed to settle the claim of the complainant as per the assessment of the surveyor in his report  together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repair and till final payment is made within a month hence.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and  harassment caused to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards litigation cost.  The order is to be carried out within a month hence.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 31^st day of May,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                              Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                        President

                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.