Orissa

Jajapur

CC/70/2015

SK.Gulam Rasul - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Pranab Ku Das Pattnayak

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.70 of 2015

SK.Gulam Rasul  S/O SK.Abdul Hanan 

At. Raghunathpur,P.O.Saragada

Mukundapur, P.S.Jenapur,

Dist.Jajpur                                                                         …… ……....Complainant .                                                                 .                   (Versus)

1.Shriram General  Insurance Co. Ltd, At/P.O. Chandikhole

P.S. Badachanda , Dist. Jajpur

2.Shriram General Insurance Company ltd, E-8, EPP Rico Industrial

Area Sitapura , Jaipur Rajasthan ( Rajasthan )

                                                                                                                            ……………..Opp.Parties.                  

For the Complainant:                                    Sri P.K.Daspattnaik, Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties : No. 2                 .         Sri S.K. Mishra,Advocate .

For the Opp.Parties No.1                              None.                            

                                                                                       

                                                                                                 Date of order:   29.01.2018.

SHRI  JIBAN BALLAV  DAS , PRESIDENT  .

Deficiency in service is the grievance of the petitioner.

            The petitioner being an unemployed youth to earn his livelihood purchased a 2^nd hand TATA Truck bearing Regd. No.0R-09-B-3684 under the refinance of O.P.no.2. as per agreement between the parties. On 10.10.12 the above Tata Truck met with an accident after which the petitionr informed the matter to the O.Ps  and after necessary investigation by the Insurance company the claim was allowed in favour of the petitioner .

            During the course of repair of the above vehicle  the Insurance policy, fitness  certificate etc was lapsed  for which the petitioner obtained fresh fitness certificate and paid up to date tax .After completion of repair work again the vehicle was insured with the O.Ps. . On 08.01.14 the said Tata Truck was playing on the road when  met with an accident , for which the petitioner made a 2^nd claim before O.p.no.2 vide claim No.100/31/13/C/045011 . Thereafter the O.ps deputed the surveyor  for necessary investigation  and after the survey report was submitted on 01.09.14 ,  the Insurance Company O.P.no.2 repudiated the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the damage of vehicle are old in nature which were checked at the time of 1^st claim , damage not related to the loss so far as spot been observed during the course of investigation by the surveyor.

            According to the petitioner the repudiation of the Insurance claim is unjust, improper  and illegal and there was no lawful reason for repudiation of the Insurance claim of the petitioner. It is further contended by the petitioner that soon after the accident the matter was informed to the Insurance company who deputed the surveyor and all the papers was submitted to the surveyor by the petitioner but the Insurance Company without application of mind and without taking into consideration the relevant materials has repudiated the claim arbitrarily ,whimsically ,illegally  for unjust and sufficient cause . Hence the prayer of the petitioner to direct the O.Ps for release of compensation amount  as mentioned in the body of the application .

            The O.Ps have appeared through their learned advocate and filed  their written version. On the other hand the O.pno.2 in the written objection inter alia stated that the case is not maintainable in the eye of law. The claim of the petitioner relating to the accident on 01.08.14 is absolutely false and fake one and the damage of the vehicle  was old in nature , for which the 1^st claim was disbursed to the complainant which met with an accident during the Insurance coverage from 15.10.2011 to 14.10.2012  as the accident took place on 10.10.12 which have been settled his own damage as admitted by the petitioner vide para-3 of the complaint petition . It is further submitted by the O.P.no.2  that the Truck of the complainant was again insured by the O.P for the period from 17.01.13 to 16.01.2014  and 8 days before the expiry of the policy period the petitioner made OD claim of the said  Truck  due to accident on 08.01.14 . Accordingly after due survey made by the O.P by its surveyor it came to light that the 2^nd claim relates to the previous old claim ,for which the Insurance Company repudiated the claim vide letter dt.01.09.2014 . The O.p further clarified that independent surveyor Er.S.K.Mohapatra  was deputed to survey who in his report gave opinion that the loss sustained by the vehicle was not a fresh one and related to the previous claim of the petitioner for which the petitioner has stated some imaginary  and cock bull  story which  have been created to obtain the Insurance claim by suppressing material  facts. Therefore, as no believable evidence could be gathered during the course of survey , the claim of the petitioner was repudiated which was without proof.

            It is further contended by the O.P that the complaint filed by the petitioner is completely silent about the cause of action that the accident took place on 08.01.14 . After the 2^nd accident on 08.01.14 the petitioner lodged the claim before the O.p.no.2 stating that the ill fated vehicle the,  Tata Truck of the petitioner while returning with the goods with the driver Sanjay Ku.Rout another loaded vehicle dashed with the Truck at front side ,for which the Tata Truck of the petitioner got capsized by the side of the road but his driver was never injured in the accident.

            On the date of hearing we heard the arguments from the learned counsels for both the sides . Perused the pleadings and documents available on record.

            According to the learned advocate for the O.P that the petitioner is guilty of supressio vari in being the fact that the petitioner has not mentioned the manner and  cause of accident . Secondly the petitioner has not immediately informed the local police regarding the accident which is mandatory/ compulsory . On 12.10.12 the petitioner filed OD claim claiming that the accident took place at 7 P.M as Baghua submitting that to save a cow the driver applied sudden break  and the vehicle could not be  controlled  , for which the vehicle went down the road and dashed with the Truck and got capsized . On the second accident i.e on 08.01.14 the petitioner stated that there was  head on   collusion between two vehicles on the Express High Way leading from Daitary to Paradeep  and in such a circumstances there must be a some injury  to driver and helper of the vehicle and the matter must have been noticed by  the local police and nearest public should have been informed , Peculiarly all this thing are found absent at the spot of the accident and there was no mark or sign of any accident nor any  tangible evidence was available during the survey by the surveyor. So according to the O.P  it is very surprising as to why the petitioner avoided to lodge a police report regarding the second accident there was head on collusion between two vehicles on the Express High Way. Further how the vehicle was retrieved from the spot is also a matter of grave suspicion  .

            Last but not least the  O.P stated that the petitioner has received the  first OD claim amounting to Rs.1,08,000/-  but this matter was intimated to the police by the petitioner on 13.10.12. which fact was registered as SDE No.249/12 and it has been mentioned  in the SDE entry to save a cow , the driver applied  a sudden break and could not control the vehicle which got capsized  by the side of the road but after the second accident caused , there was head on collusion between two vehicles on the Express High way what made the petitioner to suppress this fact from the local police is big question mark . Instead of informing the police the petitioner is smart enough to come with the  second  damage claim  from the O.P by preparing forged garage bills ,documents etc  and this has been rejected by the O.P who  repudiated the  OD claim of the petitioner .The learned advocate for the O.P also highlighted the Motor Insurance Claim Form given by the petitioner wherein the petitioner mentioned the circumstances cause of loss theft etc which is  same in both the claims i.e such as 13.10.12 and 08.01.14.

            After perusing the different documents filed by the respective parties  and after hearing the learned counsels for both the sides it is crystal clear that the petitioner appears to be guilty of suppresio vari   in being the fact that the petitioner has not informed the local police in the second accident though there was head on collusion between two vehicles on the Express High Way . Further astonishing features is there was no injury to either the driver or helper or the petitioner’s vehicle . That apart the nature and description  of the accident is conspicuously  missing in the petition filed by the petitioner. This fact has been highlighted by the learned advocate for the O.p who insisted regarding the gennuinness claim filed by the petitioner  . Besides that important  point is that the petitioner though informed the local police after the first accident has never informed the police during the second accident  though the second accident is more ghastly .  So after much deliberation  the conclusion is  irrestable that there is sufficient force in the argument of the learned counsel for the O.P  and we are also led by the statement made by the O.P and came to the finding that there is no basis  and  ground to allow the prayer of the petitioner .

            Hence this order .

            Accordingly we dismissed the C.C.Case . 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.