For the Complainant:- Sri Kunal Kumar Behera and associates, Bhawanipatna
For the O.P No. 1:- Sri S.K.Patajodhi and associates, Advocate, Bhawanipatna
For the O.P. No.2:- Sri S.K.Patra, Advocate, Bhawanipatna
ORDER.
The present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service against the afore said O.Ps for non release of vehicle by the O.P. No.1 and non payment of insurance amount in respect of a damaged vehicle which was insured with the O.P. No.2 . The brief facts of the case is briefly summarised hereunder.
The complainant is the registered owner of one TATA INDICO ECS LX vehicle Car bearing registration No. OR 8G 52582 and using the same for his personal use. The above vehicle was met with accident at about 11.00 P.MK. on Dt. 3.3.2014 near Rani Mandap of village Hirapur under Loisingha PS of Bolangir District. A criminal proceeding was registered vide P.S case No. 29/2014 under Loisingha P.S. as per the F.I.R. lodged by one Chintamani Behera. The above vehicle was insued under the O.P. No.2 vide policy No. 55090331130100001328 covering the period from 31.10.2013 to 30.10.2014. . Soon after the incident the complainant informed the O.Ps regarding the incident so also regarding the damage condition of the vehicle. That after all formalities and with the knowledge and consent of the O.P. No.2 the complainant had sent the above damaged vehicle before the O.P. No. 1 for repair. On demand of the O.P. No.2 the complainant had asked the O.P. No.1 to supply the quotation /estimated cost of the damaged vehicle. After due verification by the O.P. No.2 through their authorised surveyor and as per the instruction of the O.P. No.2, the complainant had started the repairing works in the workshop of the No. 1 and handed over the quotation to the O.P. No.2 a sum of Rs. 6,38,503/-. On demand of the O.P. No.1 the complainant paid total Rs. 2,29,005/- and sent the same amount through transfer from bank account . To get the vehicle the complainant from time to time approached with the O.Ps, but in vain. Hence this case before the forum to direct the O.P. No.1 to submit the actual bill for the repairing cost of the damaged vehicle. The forum further direct to the O.P. No.2 to release the claim amount of final surveyor in favour of the complainant and further direct the O.Ps to pay cost, compensation towards mental agony, harassment and such other relief as the court deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.
On being noticed the O.P No.1 filed written version through their learned counsel and submitted that the case is not maintainable in the eyes of law. The O.P. No.1 further submitted that the complainant is called upon to strict proof of the same. The O.P. No.1 submitted that on receipt of the balance amount the vehicle will be released. Further the O.P No.1 submitted that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain complaints on account of deficiency in service. The O.P No. 1 therefore prays the forum to dismiss the proceedings against the O.P No. 1 with cost.
The O.P. No.2 filed written version through their learned counsel. The O.P. 2 submitted that the above petition is not maintainable under the C.P. Act before the forum. The O.P. No.2 submitted that after receipt of the Bills and cash memos of repair the insurance amount will be released. The O.P. No. 2 submitted that the hon’ble forum may be pleased to dismiss the present complaint against the O.P. No.2
The O.Ps appeared and filed their written version. Arguments from the learned counsels for the parties heard. Perused the record, documents, filed by both the parties.
The learned counsel for both the parties vehemently advanced arguments touching the points both on the facts as well as on law. This forum appreciate the zeal of the learned counsels for the parties for clearly advanced arguments submitted before the forum.
FINDINGS.
On perusal of the written argument filed by the O.P. No.1 it is revealed that the O.P. No.1 submitted that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition before the forum. Section – 11 (2) (c) of the C.P. Act specified that complaint can be instituted in a District Forum with the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part arises. In the instant case the receipt and bank pass marked as Annexure-1 & 2 reveals that the O.P. No.1 received amount from the complainant through Bhawanipatna SBI Bank on transfer. This is enough proof for the cause of action to be deemed to have arise at Bhawanipatna in part. Therefore the plea of territorial jurisdiction which is stated in the written argument is rejected.
On perusal of the record it is revealed that the O.P. No.2 had taken a Private Car package policy No. 55090331130100001328 with the O.P. No.2 to provide insurance coverage to the vehicle. The policy was taken by the complainant on payment consideration amount. Hence the present case is maintainable before the forum. Further the policy was applicable from 31.10.2013 to 30.10.2014. The above vehicle was met with accident at about 11.00 P.MK. on Dt. 3.3.2014.
That for failure to act properly by the O.Ps the complainant should not be deprived of his benefits legitmate entitlement. It is to be ensured that the benefits to which the complainant is eligible are entitled to enjoy it and it should not became a distant dream.
It is observed the the O.P. No. 2 from the beginning knows all the facts of the accident vehicle. But some or other plea the O.P. No.2 has not released the insurance amount in favour of the complainant or in favour of the O.P. No.1. We find there is a gross deficiency and negligence on the part of the O.P. No.2.
On going through the final surveyor report of O.P. No.2 we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.3,20,000.00 who opted to receive compensation on total loss basis as calculated in the final survey report.
In the above facts, circumstances & on perusal of the record, the complaint petition, documents, and referring on above Citations there exists a strong “prima-facie” case in favor of the complainant.
On the strength of the aforesaid rulings of the Apex court this forum allow this case in part.
Hence to meet the ends of justice, the following order is passed. ORDER.
In the result with these observations, findings the complaint petition is allowed in part on contest against the O.Ps.
The O.P No. 1 is ordered to release vehicle Regd No. OR 8G 52582 in favour of the complainant on receipt of the insurance amount from the O.P. No.2. The O.P. NO.1 is further ordered to issue Bills and money receipt in favour of the O.P. NO.2 after receipt of the amount from the O.P. No.2.
The O.P. No.2 is ordered to release a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- in favour of the O.P. No.1 as per the Survey report.
The OPs are ordered to make compliance the aforesaid Order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which an interest @ Rs.11% would accrue on the above amount . from the date of final survey report submitted i.e. on Dt.07.7.2014 till realization to the O.P. No.2.
Dictated and corrected by me
Pronounced on this 16th. Day of October, 2015.
Member. Member. President
Documents relied upon:-
By the Complainant:-
- Xerox copies of the R.C. book of the vehicle Regd. No. OD-08-5033
- FIR CT case No. 745 /2012 Xerox copy.
- Copies of Lr. Dt. 1.8.2014 issued by the O.P. No.1
- Copies of the assessment report issued by the Shanti Automotives.
- Copies of the Paper publication.
- Copies of the regulation of IRDA (Protection of policy holder interest) regulation, 2002.
- Original Copy of quotation vide No. SAIPL/HL-QT- 6/2014.
- Copies of Lr to O.P. No.1 dt. 18.8.2014
- Copies of the electric mail dt. 20.7.205 to the O.P. No.1
- Copies of the survey report Dt. 12.12.2013.
By the O.P No.1:-
- Xerox copies of the Lr. Dt. 1.8.2014, Dt. 7.7.2015 issued by the O.P. No.2 to the complainant.
- Copies of final survey report Dt. 9.4.2014
By the O.P No.2:-
Nil.
