DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C.NO.11 OF 2014
Present: Sri Rabindranath Mishra - President.
Miss Sudhira Laxmi Pattanaik - Member.
Sri Chakadola Mallick - Member.
Smt. Sanjubala Mahakud,
Aged about 44 years,
Wife of Sri krushna Ch. Mahakud
Of Contractorpada, Phulbani
PS: Phulbani Town,
Dist Kandhaml, Odisha. …………… Complainant.
Versus.
The Manager (Claim)
IFFCO- Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Customer Service Centre,
Express Tower, 3rd Floor,
42, A Shakespear Sarani
Kolkata- 17(west Bengal). ………………. Opp. Parties.
For the Complainant: Sri Nirod Kumar Patra, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties: Sri V.V Ramdas, Advocate, Phulbani
Date of Order: 16-04-2015
O R D E R
The case of the Complainant in short is that he is the owner of one Mahindra 475 DI Tractor with trailer bearing registration No. OR-12-B/4384 and OR-12-B/4385 which were insured with the IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd, the Opposite Parties. The said policy bearing No. #1-1305 LWCP 400# was valid from 01-02-2012 to 31-01-2013. On 07-05- 2012 the said tractor along with trailer was met with an accident at Village Sartaguda in between Phulbani to Gochhapada. After the said accident the Complainant informed the Opposite Parties by telephone. The Opposite party visited the spot and taken the photograph of broken tractor and trailer. Then the Opposite Party directed the Complainant for repair of the vehicle. So, the Complainant repaired the said tractor and trailer at
-2-
Balaji Motor Garage,Phulbani and spent a sum of Rs 59,230/- towards the purchase of parts from M/S Madhukan Agro and Automobile Private Ltd, Phulbani and
Rs. 7,200 towards repair cost at Shree Balaji Motor Garage , Phulbani and also a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of transportation charges of tractor and trailer from the accident place to garage and the total amount is Rs, 71,530/- . Then the Complainant informed the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party came to Phulbani and he had taken photograph of the repaired tractor and trailer and allowed the Complainant to use the same. Accordingly he submitted his claim form along with necessary documents and claimed a sum of Rs. 71,530/- from the Opposite party.
One police case was registered vide Phulbani Sadar PS case no. 45/2012 dated 07-05-2012 under section 279,337,338 and 304(A) I.P.C corresponding to G.R case No. 186/ 2012 on the file of S.D.J.M., Phulbani but the Opposite Parties did not pay the claim amount in spite of repeated approach of the Complainant . Notice was issued on 30-12-2013 through his advocate for the purpose but the Opposite Parties did not take any step for payment of the claim amount to the Complainant which amounts deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence, he has filed this complaint for an award of Rs. 71,530/- with 12% annum interest in favor of him along with compensation of Rs. 20.000/- for his mental agony and financial loss with Rs 15.000/- towards legal expenses.
The case of the Opposite Party as per his version is that it is false that the Complainant spent Rs. 59, 230/- towards purchase of parts from M/S Madhukan Agro Automobile Private Limited, Phulbani and spent Rs. 7.200/- towards repairing cost at Balaji Motor Garage and spent Rs. 5,000/- towards transportation of tractor & trolley and in total Rs. 71,530/- to make the vehicle on road. The claim is exaggerated and violated the policy condition for which the claim was repudiated by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties has correctly calculated the claim as per the guidelines and norms of IRDA’s for which the Complainant is not entitled for any compensation. The Insurance Company has deputed a qualified surveyor and loss assessor to assess the damage and loss who assessed the loss for Rs. 34,000/- only. Hence, the Opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service as there was no cause of action .The Opposite Party has not caused any tension, mental agony and harassment to the complainant for which he is not entitled for any damage, cost, interest and compensation in any manner from the Opposite Party .
We have heard from the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. Both parties are not interested to adduce any evidence through affidavits in support of their case. However we have gone through the Complaint petition, the version filed by the Opposite party and the copy of the documents filed by the Complainant in support of his case. It is admitted that there was an accident of the alleged vehicle on 07-05-2012. It is also admitted that the Insurance policy of the vehicle was valid from 01-02-2012 to 31-01-2013. It is stated in Para 15 of the version of the Opposite Party that the damage and loss of the vehicle was
-3-
assessed for Rs. 34.000/- only by qualified surveyor deputed by the Insurance Company but there is no evidence that the Opposite Party had given the same amount to the Complainant at any point of time . The reason was not also explained by the Opposite Party as far as the disbursement of the claim amount is concerned. So, it is not proper to repudiate the claim of the Complainant. It is the settled principle of law is that the amount of compensation as assessed by the surveyor must be given due waitage .There is no evidence against the surveyor report. Hence, the Complainant is entitled to get Rs. 34,000/- from the Opposite Party towards his claim. Accordingly the Complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs. 34,000/- along with 9 % annum interest from the date of filing of this complaint it is on 02-04-2014 till the date of payment. The Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs. 5.000/- to the Complainant towards compensation and Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of litigation. The Opposite Party is directed to comply the order within 30 days after receipt of this order otherwise the Complainant shall be entitled to get 12% interest per annum on the entire awarded amount from the date of this order till the date of payment.
The C.C is disposed of. Supply free copies of this order to both the parties.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
