Orissa

Rayagada

CC/231/2016

Mrs S.Raj Kumari Dora - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Compay Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

27 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 231 / 2016.                                       Date.    27    .3. 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu, .                               Member.

Smt.  Padmalaya  Mishra,                          Member

Mrs. S.Raj  Kumari  Dora, W/O: S.Bhaskar Dora, Jaysree Nagar, Po/ Dist:.Rayagada,State:  Odisha. Cell No. 9437234888.                                                                                                                                                                                                   …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Branch  Manager, Shriram General Insurance   Company Ltd., Regd. Office 10003, At:E-8, Rilco Industrial Area, Sita Pura, Po:Jaipur, 302022,   State:  Rajastan.

2. The  Branch  Manager,  Shriram  Transport  Finance Co. Ltd., Rayagada.                                                                                                                                     .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self..

For the O.P No.1 :- Set  exparte.

For the  O.P. No.2:- Sri K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan, Advocate, Rayagada.

                                J u d g e m e n t.

        The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non payment  of  repair bill a sum  of Rs.1,04,730/- towards accident vehicle (Bolero plus) bearing Registration No. OR-18-C-5733. The brief facts of the case are summarised here under.

       1.That the complainant  is the registered owner of the vehicle (Bolero plus) bearing Registration No. OR-18-C-5733  which was insured with the O.P No.1 vide policy No.  10003/31/15/617265 for the period from  22.3.2015 to 21.3.2016 towards the premium of the above said policy  the complainant had paid  Rs. 19,045/- to the O.P. No.1 for the sum assured  for Rs.4,80,000/-.  On Dt. 8.7.2015 at about 11.00 P.M. the said vehicle met with accident near Koraput junction turning, Rayagada which caused major damages  to the vehicle. Soon after the accident the matter was then reported to the police station, vide P.S. Case  No. 128 Dt.10.7.2015 U/S 279 and 337 I.P.C. and the complainant immediately intimated the O.P. No.1  and O.P. No.2 about the accident .The  O.P. No.1 deputed his surveyor in order to assess the loss on account of the damage  caused to the vehicle due to the accident and as per the  instructions of the surveyor  the estimate for repair was  prepared and they  have approved the same.  The complainant  in order to  run his business  through  the vehicle, had repaired and met the expenditure cost Rs. 1,04,730/- . All the bills  were submitted to the surveyor on Dt.3.8.2015.  On reminders the O.P. No.1  offering a sum of Rs.49,200/- which the complainant had refused  and intimated to the  O.P. No.1  to reassess the  actual loss. The amount claimed  is neither reimbursed by the O.Ps nor rejected and kept it pending with them. Hence this case. The complainant prays the forum direct the O.Ps  to pay the repair bill amount a sum of Rs.1,04,730/-  and such other relief as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.

On being noticed the  O.P No.1  neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  15 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No.1.  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  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P No.1. The action of the O.Ps is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P. No.1 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.

The O.P. No.2 filed written version through their learned counsel  and submitted that the O.P. NO.2 has rendered the services in making correspondence with the O.P. No.1. As per the settlement of the claim on the basis  of surveyor reports the O.P. No.1  has directed the O.P. No. 2  to deliver the cheque for Rs.49,200/- to the complainant as per their settlement. The O.P. No.2 has got no knowledge of the same and also no role to play in the settlement. The O.P. No.2 is only financed on the vehicle which was involved in the accident i.e. Bolero plus bearing Regd. No. OR-18-C 5733.  The whole allegation of the complaint is only against the O.P. No.1. The O.P No.2 prays the forum to dismiss the complaint petition  against the O.P. No.2 for the best interest of justice.

 Heard from  the complainant and from the learned counsel  for the O.P. No.2   inter alia  Perused the  record  filed by the parties.

                                     

                                                Findings.

On perusal of the record we observed  that the complainant had  package  policy  bearing  No.10003/31/15/617265  valid  for the period from  22.3.2015 to  21.3.2016 mid night(Copies of the policy  is enclosed in the file which marked as Annexure-I). Again it is observed that    the  complainant is the Registered owner of the Bolero plus bearing  Regd  No. OR-18-C-5733(Copies of the R.C. is in the file which marked as Annexure-II.   Further  the above  PACKAGE POLICY  has a IDV   a sum of Rs. 4,80,000/- for the above vehicle bearing No. OR-18-C-5733.

After accident  the above vehicle the complainant had made complaint at Police station, Rayagada   copies of the F.I.R  No.128 Dt. 10.7.2015  is enclosed herewith which is marked as Annexure-III. The  complainant  was  made correspondence  to the O.Ps   in different dates i.e. 15.1.2015, 13.2.2016,3.5.2016, 9.5.2016, ( copies of the letters are annexed which are marked as Annexure-4 to 7).  The complainant has filed repair bills obtained from the  different firms for repair of above accident vehicle  which are marked as Annexure- 8  to  14 .

The complainant also argued  due to non reimbursement  of the above money he  suffered a lot of financial trouble  and mental agony. The complainant prays the forum as the  O.Ps have   not heard any  grievance of the complainant till date   so the  O.Ps  be  directed to reimburse the  amount a sum of Rs.1,04,730/- .

After carefully examining the evidence on record, we find no cogent reason  to disbelieve or discard the evidence already adduced by the complainant. The documentary evidence  tendered by the complainant clearly tends support and absolute corroboration   to  the evidence.  

In absence of any rebuttal materials from the side  of   O.P No.1   there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence put forth  by the  complainant  before the forum  whose evidence  suffers from no infirmity. The evidence adduced by the complainant  clearly leads us to arrive at a just conclusion that there is not only deficiency  in service  but also negligence  on the part of the O.Ps  in not   reimbursing the amounts a sum of Rs. 1,04,730/-  to the complainant  towards vehicle accident  repair bill  claim  amount   as per the  provisions laid down under section 14 of the  C.P. Act.

On careful analysis   of the evidence on record both oral and documentary, we are clearly of the opinion  that  inspite of doing the needful, the O.Ps are failed to redress the grievances of the complaint which amounts to  deficiency in service  as a result the complainant was constrained  to file this complaint before the forum claiming the relief as sought for.  In that view  of the matter the O.P No.1 is  liable.

This forum observed this policy  is only intended to collect the premium  from the  parties and not to pay back the same at the event admitted/accepted  by the policy bond.

Not responding to the grievance of a genuine consumer amounts to deficiency in service and in that line we hold that the O.P. No.1  is   liable.

            Hence to meet  the  ends  of  justice,  the following   order is  passed.

                                                            ORDER.

            In  resultant  the complaint petition is  hereby  allowed in part  on exparte against  the O.P No.1.

                The O.P   No.1  is   ordered to  reimburse the   amount a sum of Rs. 1,04,730/- towards accident vehicle (Bolero plus) repair bill  bearing Registration No. OR-18-C-5733  inter alia to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony  and cost of litigation  to the complainant .      

                The O.P. No.2 is directed to refer the matter to the O.P. No. 2 for early compliance  of this order.

            The O.Ps are  ordered to comply the above direction within one month from the date of  receipt of this order. Service the copies of the order to the parties free of  cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this               27th. day of   March, 2018.

 

MEMBER.                                MEMBER.                                                        PRESIDENT.