Orissa

Rayagada

CC/15/128

Sri Vijay Kuamr Fundanani - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Rajendra Kumar Senapathi

13 Jan 2017

ORDER

 

                    DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

                 

                                                          C.C. Case  No.128/ 2015.

P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu, B.Sc                                       Member

                                                                                   

Sri Vijay Kumar Fundanani,aged about 44 years, Son of late Kanayalal, Resident of New Colony, Rayagada,, Po/Ps  Dist. Rayagada.                                                                                                                                                                                                           ………Complainant

                                                            Vrs.

1. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Business Centre, Co-operative Colony, Rayagada, Dist. Rayagada.          
2. The Regional Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd., IDCO Tower,6^th Floor, Janpath, Bhubaneswar.                                                                                               ……...Opp.Party

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: Sri Rajendra Kumar Senapati and Associates Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P: Sri P.Ch.Dash and Associates Advocate, Rayagada.

 

                                                                JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased one Honda Unicorn bearing RegistrationNO.OR-18A/7575 and insured the vehicle with the OP 1-National Insurance Co. Ltd. Rayagada vide Policy No.166024311310000300 dt.27.12.2013  and the policy is valid from 27.12.13 to 26.12.2014 . On  09.01.2014 the vehicle of the complainant was stolen  by some one from the parking place  in front of his shop. The complainant lodged an FIR bearing Gr .Case No.15/2014(Arising out of P.S.Case No.05/2014 before the IIC, Rayagada Police Station and after receipt of the FIR the police  started investigation of the case. The complainant also intimated the incident of theft  to the Ops and the OP No.1 deputed his surveyor   and made assessment  of the damage of the complainant to the tune of Rs.30,000/-  and after some days the OP 1 asked the complainant to produce the police papers relating to the theft and  the complainant  submitted the papers  to the OP and the complainant  approaching the  Opposite parties  to settle the claim  but after lapse of more than one year also  the OPs  have not settled the claim of the complainant and avoiding to settle his claim on one plea or the other. Hence, prayed to direct the Ops  to settle the claim with 12% interest  and  award  Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony   and Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses. Hence, this complaint.

                        On being noticed, the Opp.Party appeared  and  filed    written version denying the petition allegations  on all its material particulars. It is submitted by the O.ps that  the complainant  has insured his vehicle  with the OP 1 vide Policy No. No.166024311310000300 dt.27.12.2013 for the period from 27.12.13 to 26.12.14.   After receipt of information from the complainant  about the theft of the vehicle, the Ops have immediately deputed a surveyor  to the spot and  the surveyor   made  assessment and  submitted  its report to the Ops. From the beginning the Ops are asking the complainant to submit the documents for settlement of the claim but the complainant  has so far not complied with the said documents. The Ops in its letter dt.3.6.15 and 27.4.16 requested the complainant to submit the required documents  but without producing the documents the complainant has filed this complaint. The delay for settlement of the claim is due to non submission of documents  by the complainant and the Ops are not avoiding to settle the claim. There is no negligence or deficiency  of service on the part of the Ops rather the deficiency is with the complainant for non submission of the required documents. Hence, prayed to dismiss the case with costs.

                                                               FINDINGS

                   Admittedly the O.ps have not denied the fact of theft of the insured vehicle and in support of the fact the complainant has filed all the documents including the FIR vide  Rayagada  P.S. Case No.05  of 2014  but the Ops submitted that  the Ops are asking the complainant to submit the documents for settlement of the claim but the complainant  has  not  submitted the said documents and the Ops in its letter dt.3.6.15 and 27.4.16 requested the complainant to submit the required documents  but without producing the documents the complainant has filed this complaint. The delay for settlement of the claim is due to non submission of documents  by the complainant and the Ops are not avoiding to settle the claim. But the complainant submitted that he has already submitted the documents  to one of the staff of OP  Champaka Prasad Rana, AO, In charge, Rayagada  who has received the same with seal and the complainant has also filed the papers with seal of the staff of  OP. We verified the same  found that  the complainant has filed all the documents as required by the OP and  how can the OP said that  the claim could not be settled as the complainant has not submitted the  required documents. The investigation report says that the case is true but there is no clue. When the fact is clearly proved by such documentary evidence, the O.p has  settle the claim without any delay. To escape from their  negligence  the O.ps are taking the plea of non submission of documents . From the above discussion we found fault from the side of the Ops and  as such it is  deficiency in service on the part of the Ops  for  causing mental agony  and financial loss to the complainant , as such the O.ps are liable to pay insurance amount and  compensation to the complainant along with cost of litigation  Hence, it is ordered.

                                                                       ORDER

                        The complaint petition  is allowed on contest against the O.p 1 & 2 and  the O.ps are directed to pay the insurance amount  along with a  monetary compensation of Rs.15,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.2000/- to the complainant within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of this order failing which execution proceeding will follow U/s 25 & 27 of the C.p.Act,1986 for execution of the award.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this 28th  day of December, 2016 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

 

 

            Member                                                                                               President

Documents relied upon:

By the complainant:

1.  Copy of Acknowledgement  of the OP
2.  Copy of Motor claim form
3. Copy of  certificate of insurance
4. Copy of FIR
5. Copy of  letter of the complainant to the IIC, Rayagada.
6. Copy  of Final Form
7. Copy property of Seizure Memo
8. Copy of Statement – 2 Nos.

 

By the Opp.Party:

1. Policy Wording for Two Wheelers

                                                                                                                      President