Orissa

Rayagada

CC/117/2019

Banamali Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, New India Assurance co. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

23 Sep 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

 

C.C.CASE  NO.__117_______/2019                                    Date.  18      .12.  2021.

 

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

 

Sri  Banamali  Behera, S/O: Late Kaliraj Behera, At: Gudalelibadi,  Po:Kolnara,   Dist: Rayagada.                                                                                                                                                          …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Branch Manager,  New  India Assurance Co., Rayagada Branch,Rayagada.

2.The Managing  Director, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Fort Mumbai.

3.Sri Kunibilli Mallaya, B.C.Road,  J.K.Pur, Dist: Rayagada

4.Sri Akhaya Kumar Padhy, Boxi Street, Parlakhemundi.         ...…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri   P.K.Das, Advocate,Rayagada.

For the O.P. No.1:- Sri  Ram Prasad  Patra, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P No.2 to  5 :- Set  exparte.

 

JUDGEMENT

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non  reimbursement of repair  bill   of  damaged  JCB  loader  towards insurance  policy No. 55060444170700000002 for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. 

Upon  Notice, the O.P No.1    put in their appearance and filed  written version in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps    taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act,  The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P No.1.   Hence the O.P No.1  prays the commission  to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Upon  Notice, the  O.P No.. 2 to  5    neither entering in to appear before the District commission  nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  12 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No.2 to 5 .  Observing lapses of around  2 years    for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act,  going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  from the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P No.2 to  5 . The action of the O.P No.2 to 5   are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  in the C.P. Act. Hence the O.P. No.2 to 5 was     set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act,.

Heard  the case  and  arguments from the learned counsels from  both  the    O.P    and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This commission   examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

          FINDINGS.

            On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the sole question of determination is  Whether  the complainant is entitled  to insurance claim made by him ?

            On careful perusal of  all the  papers we  observed  that  there is no  dispute that the  complainant  had   purchased a  one JCB Hydraulic Excavator  loader  bearing  Regd. No. OD-18-8397 on Dt.19.5.2017  from the O.P. No.3  by  borrowing  finance  from the finance company  and got it insured with the O.P. No.1 which  set fire  on Dt. 04.11.2017 at  about 8.00 to 9.00 P.M. in the worksite under  R.W.D. from Gunduriguda to   Lakhapadar near village Naingitola..  The insurance  policy  No. 55060444170700000002 was effective from 28.4.2017 to  27.4.2018.

            The O.P. No.1(Insurance Co.) in  their written version  contended that  the policy stands in the name of  Sri K.Mallaya and the  R.C. book stands in the name of  Mr. Banamali Behera(complainant) hence there  is no insurable interest in the subject matter  of insurance.

            In this connection,  this District  Commission  has relied  some citations  which are mentioned here under:-

            It is held and reported in  1999(3) T.A.C. 757 (A.P)  the Hon’ble  High Court of   Andhra  Pradesh  where  in  observed  “Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section -157(1)- Liability of Insurance company- Transfer of Certificate of    insurance  - Vehicles sold prior to date of  accident but transferee not applying to  insurer for  transfer of certificate  of insurance-Whether insurer is absolved  from its liability  to pay compensation   on the ground  that policy  was not  transferred  but it in favour of the   transferee-Held-No-Certificate of insurance  and policy  stand transferred  in favour of  transferee  from  the date  of   transfer  under the deeming  provision of  Section- 157(1)   Act – Order  of lower court  fastening  liability  of paying   compensation  on insurer  upheld.

            As the accident  took place on   DT. 04.11.2017, it is governed by the  provisions of Motor  Vehicles Act of  1988 .  Section -157 of Motor Vehicles Act,  1988 entitles  the insured  to transfer the policy of the insurance along  with   the transfer  of vehicle   and on his doing so,  the certificate of insurance along with the  transfer of vehicle and on his doing so, the certificate of insurance and the policy  stand transferred  in favour of the  transferee  from the date of  transfer under the  deeming   provision enacted  in sub-section (1) of  Section -157 of the Motor  Vehicles Act, 1988..  There is now no requirement of applying to the insurer for transfer of the policy  and it  gets  transferred  to the transferee by operation   of law  Even though  Section  157(2)  of the  Act   gives  14 days  time from the date of  transfer to the transferee to make an application  to the insurer for making  necessary changes  in regard  to the effect  of transfer  in the certificate  of insurance   and the policy  described  in the certificate  in his favour, the liability  of the insurer  can not be  absolved even  if such   transfer is not consequently  effected by  it as sub-section (2) of the Section -157  specifically says that   the insurer shall make  necessary  chances  in the certificate   and policy of insurance in regard to the transfer  of insurance  when such application is made Sub-section (2) of Section -157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides only a procedure  to intimate   the fact   of transfer  of vehicle  to the insurer in order to to make  necessary changes in the certificate  of insurance   and the policy to bring  it  in conformity  with the  deemed transfer  as contemplated  under Section  157(1)  of the Act  for the purpose of indemnifying the transferee relating to  the risk  covered  under the policy   and that non compliance with this procedure does not automatically  invalidate the deemed  transfer that had  taken  place by virtue  of the operation  of  law  as  contemplated  under Sub-section (1) of  section 157 of the Act.

            The same view  was held by the Karnataka  High Court  also in the  decision  reported  in  National Insurance Co. Ltd  Vrs. Lakshmi, 1997  ACJ 7:  1997(2) TAC 447 (Kant.) 

In the decision of the Supreme Court  reported in Complete  Insulations(P) Ltd.   Vrs. New  India  Assurance Co. Ltd.,  1996 ACJ  65 : 1996(1) T.A.C 340(SC), it is observed   by their lordships that in so  far as the   claim of third  parties for compensation  is concerned, Section – 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988  introduces   a deeming provision where by  the transfer of certificate  of insurance and the policy  of insurance is deemed to have been made  where the vehicle  along with  the  insurance policy is transferred by the owner to another  person and that  this provision    has withdrawn the insurer’s  right of  refusal,  which was available    to him  under the provisions  of  Section  103-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 

In the full bench  of  High Court, Andhra Pradesh   reported in  Madineni Kondaiah   Vrs.  Yaseen Fatima,  1986 ACJ 1 : 1986 (1) TAC  500 (AP).  Also  it is held  that  the  Insurance Company   can not raise the  defence that  the policy had  lapsed on account of the sale of vehicle  and that it can not   contend  that its   contract  of insurance  is only  with the transferor and that is  not  responsible     to redeem   the  compensation  payable  by the  transferee, as such  defences are not   available   to it   under the provisions  of the Section 96(2)  of the Motor Vehicles Act. 

In view of  all such  circumstances, the  Insurance Company can not now contend  that is not liable  to pay compensation  to the  complainant.   

On  perusal of the written version  filed  by the  O.P. No.1  it is revealed that  the  O.P. No.1  contended that  due to  non submission of the following  documents the  claim  of the complainant is not yet settled.

1.G.R. case papers, M.V.I. report,  route permit, Fitness  certificate, R.C.Book  etc.

2.Final  report  of the police  in connection  with the P.S. case No. 94  Dt. 05.11.2017.

G.R. case papers, M.V.I. report,  route permit, Fitness  certificate, R.C.Book  etc.  are  available  in the file  and  the complainant had submitted all the above  papers   to the  O.P. No.1  for  settlement of insurance  claim.

 It  is admitted fact  that  both  the  parties are admitted  Final  report  of the police   will  not  be  available  early  as the  same are  done by  Maoists and  it will take  more time.    In support of  this case the complainant  filed a  xerox copies  of  Number  of Odia  daily News  papers  published   on Dt. 5.11.2017. The  daily odia  New papers  are Sambad,  Pragatibad,  Prameya,  Samaya,  Khabar,  Prajatantra, Sambad  Kalika,  Samaj  where  the maoists  incidents  was  published.

            On  query it is revealed  and admitted  fact that   the required documents will neither  increase  nor decrease  the loss amount arrived  by the O.P. No.4 (Varun  motors, Vizag)   in their repair bill(copies of the repair  bill  of the JCB  is available  in the file)..

Further it is held as reported in SCC (1979) 4   page- 178  “Resort to the plea of limitation by public authority to defeat just  claim of citizen depreciated- Though  permissible under law, such technical pleas should only be taken when claim is not well founded”. Again the Hon’ble  Supreme Court opined  that “ it is high time the “Govts. and public  authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate  claims  of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. Further the Hon’ble  Supreme Court in deciding the said  U/S- 136 of the Constitution of  India has kept in mind, the constitutional duty imposed on the public sector Company/organization. Being public sector Company/organization are supposed to facilitate the concept of welfare state and interest of the citizens and do not extract monetary  benefit by rejecting  just claim of the citizen on technical grounds.

Further the learned counsel for the  complainant  filed citation  reported in   CPR- 2004(2) page No. 80  where  the Hon’ble   State Commission  allowed  similar  type  case in  absence  documents  required by the O.P. No.1.

Further  in the present case   the O.P. No. 4((Varun  motors, Vizag)   assessed the damage to the tune  of Rs.11,80,000/-  towards  repair charges   of the damaged JCB.  As per the direction of the O.P.No.1(Insurance  Co.) the complainant   shifted the  damaged  JCB to the  O.P. No.4 ((Varun  motors, Vizag)  for repair of  the same.

The Ist. Question whether the complainant qualifies to be a Consumer? In a  Catena of Judgements the Hon’ble  National Commission has held and reported  in  C.P.R. 2009(1)  page No. 44  the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi observed  when a company or any one obtains  an Insurance it is not part of commercial activity, but it  is obtaining in order to cover the risk to the commercial activity, hence, even companies  obtaining a insurance cover  will fall within the defination of ‘Consumer’.

Further Para- 21 as per regulation 9(5) of the IRDA Protection of policy holders interest regulation 2002   the Insurance company was obliged to finalise the view  based on the report of the surveyor within a period of 30 days. Section 9(3) states that if the  insurer on the receipt of the survey report  finds that it is in complete in any respect, he shall require the surveyor under  intimation to the insured  to furnish an additional report on certain specific issue as may  be  required by the   insurer such a request may  be made within 15 days of receipt of the original survey report. Provided that the facility of calling for an additional report by the  insurer shall not be resorted more than once in the case of claim.  The other facts which is necessary is also dealt within Sub- section (4) and (5).

Further it is held and reported  in C.P.R. 2009(2) page No. 91 the Hon’ble  Moharastra  State Commission observed  when a person taken insurance  policy to cover the  envisaged risk, he does not take it for commercial purpose.  Policy is only for  indemnification  and  actual loss. It is not intended to generate  profit.

Further it is held  and report in C.T.J. 2008 page No. 917 the Hon’ble  Supreme Court  held that the insurance company after having accepted the value of  a particular  insured goods at the time of  insuring the goods cannot disown that very figure on one pretext or the other when they are called upon to pay the compensation.   Take it or leave it attitude in such a case is not only  unwarranted being bad in law but ethically indefeasible  would  be liable to pay the compensation  on the insured amount on it had accepted the premium for the entire amount covered  under the policy.

 Further we perused the case law  in the instant case. It is held and reported in  CPC- 1991, page -540 the  Hon’ble  Hariyana State  Commission held that when ever there is any delay or dilatoriness in finalizing  the insurance claim, the same would be tenta  mount to a  deficiency  in service and thus comes squarely within the  purview of Consumer Forum.  Once it is held that default or negligence in the  settlement of an insurance claim is a deficiency  in service then an arbitrary  or mischievous  rejection  of an insurance claim  would patently  be a default  within its larger  meaning. On principle , it would   seem  some what manifest that the mere repudiation of the insurance claim cannot itself operate  as a  jurisdiction bar for redressel forums under the Act.  This is further  made it clear  it is held and reported  in CPR-1991(2), page No.18  the Hon’ble National Commission  clearly defines  the mere unilateral  rejection of an insured parties  claimed by the insurer does not  per  se  operate as jurisdictional bar to seek redressal before  the forums under the Act. It is on the strength of the  above decision  the instant case is admitted by this commission.

On  going  through  the  repair  bill of the  damaged JCB  we are of the view that the  complainant is entitled to get the   repair  bill   amount  of the  damaged JCB.. 

The O.Ps are   taking one and another pleas in the written version and had mentioned  a lot of citations of the Apex  courts and   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act.

The preliminary objection regarding maintainability, jurisdiction  of the commission  which are made objection by way of  written version  by the O.Ps  in  the present  case before the commission is rejected. But  in the foregoing  circumstances  & with the  above observation  it appears just and proper being this is a welfare legislation to decide the matter  the following  orders  passed for the best  interest  of justice.

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 Hon’ble National Commission, and Apex Court  this  District commission  allow this case.

          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 on contest against  the O.P No. 1(Insurance Co.) and  dismissed  against  O.P. No.2  to 5. 

The   O.P.No.1  (Insurance  Co. )  is directed to  reimburse  the repair bill   of  damaged   JCB  loader vide  Reg. No.OD-18-8397 bearing  policy  No. 55060444170700000002   as  submitted   by the complainant. 

Parties  are left  to bear their own cost.

The entire directions shall be carried out with in  45( forty five)  days from the  date of receipt   of this order,   failing which  an interest  @ Rs.9% p.a.  would  accrue on the decrial  amount . from  the date of   filing  i.e.on  Dt.06.11.2019  till  realization.

Service the copies of the order to the parties  as per rule.

Dictated and  corrected by me.

                Pronounced in the open   Commission   on               18 th.   day of       December, 2021.

 

 

                                                                                MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT