BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
C.C NO-42/2018
Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Smita Tripathy,Member (W).
Sri Shashanka Chakrabarty,aged about 37 years,
S/O- Narayan Chakrabarty,
R/O- Badbazar, Bangalipada,
P.O/P.S-Khetrajpur, Dist-Sambalpur. …..Complainant
Vrs.
- The Branch Manager,
IFFKO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd,
Budharaja, Sambalpur,
P.O- Budharaja, Sambalpur.
- General Manger,
IFFKO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd,
Malaviya Nagar, S.O- South Delhi,Pin-110017 .………O.Ps
Counsels:-
For the Complainant:-Sri Sudeep Bose, Advocate & Associates.
For the O.P-1 & 2:- Sri B.K.Purohit, Advocate & Associates.
DATE OF HEARING : 03.03.2021, DATE OF ORDER : 12.04.2021
SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT:-Brief facts of the case is that the Complainant has purchased a Sonalika D-1-35 Agriculture Tractor to earn his livelihood and got it insured with the IFFKO TOKIO GENERAL Insurance vide policy no-1-IIV1U7CP400 which was valid from dtd. 22.09.2017 to 21.09.2018. During the policy period the said Tractor on dtd.09.11.2017 got accident at Nirgunpada under Ainthapali in Sambalpur district. The public present there set fire the Tractor due to anger and it was completely damaged. The incident was registered in the Ainthapali Police Station vide P.S Case no-398 dtd. 09.11.2017 in an allegation u/s-279/337/338 IPC. The Complainant made an Insurance claim with the O.P for the settlement of loss against the Tractor. The O.P assessed the loss at Rs.71,548.22 and credited the amount into the account of the Complainant vide A/C No-20004276034 on dtd. 28.03.2018 but the amount was very less as compared to the loss and expenditure incurred by the Insured. The Complainant has spent Rs.2,27,824.75 towards Engine Parts and fittings, accessories Labour Charges, colour and charges to make the Tractor Roadworthy. The bills were accordingly submitted with the O.P which is genuine. The Complainant has made several approaches to the O.P for settlement of claim but in vain. The Complainant has sent Advocate Notices to the O.P-1 on 11.04.2018 who received the same on dtd. 12.04.2018 and sent another notice to the O.P-2 on dtd.16.04.2018 but no response from the O.Ps are received. The O.Ps has not settled the claim for which the Complainant is going through financial loss, mental pain and agony which amounts to deficiency in services and prays for certain relief as per the complaint petition.
As per the O.Ps the Complainant had availed a Commercial Vehicle Policy of Insurance from the O.Ps. During the currency of the policy the Complainant had informed the incident on dtd. 09.11.2017 and claim form was filed. On receiving information the O.P-1 engaged one IRDA licensed Surveyor and Loss Assessor as per the provision of 64UM of the Insurance Act for assessment of loss. The vehicle was shifted to Sri Narayan Motors at Sambalpur and the repair works started there. After the repair the said Surveyor calculated and assessed the loss as per the parts assessment summary and made certain deductions As the Vehicle was a commercial one hence the permit was very much necessary but the Insured could not provide Permit copy and deduction was made for non-availability of the same. After final calculation the net payable amount was Rs.71,548.22 and the same was approved and paid to the insured sent to the SBI account of the Complainant. The O.Ps denied that the Complainant is entitled to get Rs. 1,56,276.53/- from the O.Ps. The O.Ps has certain liabilities towards depreciation, plastic, glass and fibre items and such amount was to be calculated after application of mind. The claim has been fully and finally settled by the O.Ps and the Complainant did not protest to it immediately but came up with protest at belated stage hence the claim cannot be survived. So the petition deserves to be dismissed.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-
- Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
- Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?
From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has purchased a Tractor and got it Insured from the O.P after payment of premium as consideration. After the accident the Complainant has applied to the O.P for settlement of claim. After verification of the documents filed by the Complainant and following the terms and policy conditions the O.Ps has calculated the loss and the net payable amount was Rs.71,548.22 and the same was approved and paid to the insured sent to the SBI account of the Complainant. The claim has been fully and finally settled by the O.Ps and the Complainant did not protest to it immediately but came up with protest at belated stage. The O.Ps has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of “United Insurance co. Ltd. Vrs. Jarnail Singh IV(2016)CPJ360(NC)” which based on the matters of vehicle plying without a permit. So from the above it is observed that the O.Ps have settled the claim after certain deductions made as per the guidelines of the Insurance Company and paid the same in the account of the Complainant which does not comes under the head of Deficiency in Service as per Consumer Protection Act-2019. Hence the Complainant petition is disallowed and disposed of.
Order pronounced in the open Court today i.e, on 12th of April 2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.
Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.
I agree,
-Sd/- -Sd/-
MEMBER(W) PRESIDENT
Dictated and Corrected
by me.
-Sd/-
PRESIDENT
